Gas Optimizations

[c4-bot-5]

See the markdown file with the details of this report here.

[saxenism]

Mid report.

[c4-sponsor]

saxenism (sponsor) acknowledged

[c4-judge]

alex-ppg marked the issue as grade-c

[zabihullah-azadzoi]

Hi @alex-ppg

I think this report deserves an a-grade, and I can't see any reason for entirely disqualifying this report, since all the findings mentioned in the 4naly3er report are excluded. and many other reports that got a-grade, contains almost the same findings as mine, even less in number in some cases. for instance: #19 , #23 , #32 , #68 , #74 . the only difference is the formatting, most of the a-graded gas reports are bot-generated reports and are following similar formatting pattern. Each issue in the report has been clearly described, as well as amount of gas saved per instance and total gas saved in each finding are included in the description of the finding.

furthermore, there are many findings in the report suggesting a significant amount of gas saving such as: G-1 G-4 G-6 G-7 G-8 G-9 G-10 G-20 G-26 G-29 G-32 G-34 G-39 G-40 G-44 G-53 G-54 G-57 G-58

[alex-ppg]

Hey @zabihullah-azadzoi, thanks for contributing to the PJQA process. The other reports containing fewer items than your own report are actually the reason your report got disqualified, as your submission contains multiple egregious errors. Additionally, this statement in your response is invalid:

since all the findings mentioned in the 4naly3er report are excluded

Evaluating each issue you have specified:

• G-1: 2nd, 6th, and 7th instance are invalid.
• G-4: 1st, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, and 9th instance are invalid.
• G-6: 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th are invalid.
• G-7: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th are invalid causing the entire item to be invalid.
• G-8: Contains repetitions of mapping access, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th are invalid.
• G-9: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th are invalid.
• G-10: This is a very ambiguous automatically generated finding. Additionally, 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th are invalid.
• G-20: This finding is inapplicable with the optimizer turned on.
• G-26: This finding does not take bytecode size limitations into account. Additionally, internal functions are automatically inlined by the optimizer where possible.
• G-29: Contains multiple invalid items (i.e. IERC20::decimals, ECDSA v value, struct tight-packed variables) and is in most circumstances inapplicable.
• G-32: The codebase employs 0.8.20 rendering this exhibit invalid, and there are no precise gas savings despite what the finding implies.
• G-34: This finding is inapplicable, unless it demonstrates a function name that is legible to external observers. Additionally, it notes items such as IWETH9 functions which is invalid.
• G-39: This is invalid as the variables are deliberately mutable, and the contract needs to be backward compatible.
• G-40: This has been identified by the 4naly3er as evidenced here: https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-03-zksync/blob/main/4naly3er-report.md#gas-3-using-bools-for-storage-incurs-overhead
• G-44: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th are invalid.
• G-53: This is actually a gas increase, as the AccountInfo structure occupies one slot with two sub-members. As such, updating one sub-member requires bitwise operations by the compiler that incur overhead over loading in memory and overwriting entirely.
• G-54: 1st, and 2nd are invalid.
• G-57: This is applicable to events with only one argument as the scratch space can hold 64 bytes and the event's signature would also need to be stored in memory. As such, most items listed are invalid either fully or partially.
• G-58: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 13th, and 15th are invalid.

I am more than happy to provide feedback on how to make your automated bot better, however, I cannot accept a submission with so many egregious errors as valid. I also do not appreciate that you escalate a submission you demonstrably have not put effort in, and request a judge to put the effort in your place.

I advise that you properly evaluate the validity of your bot's submissions moving forward to increase the rewards you capture, and I will strongly recommend avoiding escalations in future contests if you have not carefully vetted your own submission. The judgment is final.