Reduce contract size and deployment gas for onlyOwner modifier #3223
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
For inheriting contracts that use the onlyOwner modifier significant gas savings for deployment can be made by not inlining the require statement in every modified function. When you add a function modifier, the code of that function is picked up and put in the function modifier in place of the _ symbol. If the same code is inlined multiple times, it adds up in size. Internal functions, on the other hand, are not inlined but called as separate functions. This means they are very slightly more expensive in run time but save a lot of redundant bytecode in deployment. From my testing with a sample contract this simple PR saves substantial gas per modifier call in contract size. This really adds up when for example in my contract I have 18 calls to onlyOwner!: Savings per call at 10 Runs Optimization: 1 modifier call: 3883700-3857256 = 26,444 Gwei 2 modifier calls: 3892096-3857268 = 17,414 Gwei 5 modifier calls: 3917411-3857268 = 12,028 Gwei Savings per call at 1000 Runs Optimization: 1 modifier call: 4311775-4258622 = 53,153 Gwei 2 modifier calls: 4329572-4258622 = 35,475 Gwei 5 modifier calls: 4382740-4258622 = 24,823 Gwei
|
Thank you @uglyrobot for this PR. Could you please fix the lintting? Running |
|
Fixed |
|
@frangio do we need a changelog entry for that ? |
frangio
reviewed
Mar 1, 2022
Comment on lines
+48
to
+49
| * @dev Putting the require in an internal function decreases contract size | ||
| * when onlyOwner modifier is used multiple times. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * @dev Putting the require in an internal function decreases contract size | |
| * when onlyOwner modifier is used multiple times. | |
| * @dev Throws if the sender is not the owner. |
frangio
reviewed
Mar 1, 2022
| * @dev Putting the require in an internal function decreases contract size | ||
| * when onlyOwner modifier is used multiple times. | ||
| */ | ||
| function _onlyOwner() internal view { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The function should be virtual (we make all our functions virtual).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we could make it internal virtual, but we could also make it private
|
Yes I'd say we should add a changelog entry. |
|
Closed by #3347 |
This was referenced Aug 30, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #3222
For inheriting contracts that use the onlyOwner modifier significant gas savings for deployment can be made by not inlining the require statement in every modified function.
When you add a function modifier, the code of that function is picked up and put in the function modifier in place of the _ symbol. If the same code is inlined multiple times, it adds up in size. Internal functions, on the other hand, are not inlined but called as separate functions. This means they are very slightly more expensive in run time but save a lot of redundant bytecode in deployment.
From my testing with a sample contract this simple PR saves substantial gas per modifier call in contract size. This really adds up when for example in my contract I have 18 calls to onlyOwner!:
Savings per call at 10 Runs Optimization:
1 modifier call: 3883700-3857256 = 26,444 Gwei
2 modifier calls: 3892096-3857268 = 17,414 Gwei
5 modifier calls: 3917411-3857268 = 12,028 Gwei
Savings per call at 1000 Runs Optimization:
1 modifier call: 4311775-4258622 = 53,153 Gwei
2 modifier calls: 4329572-4258622 = 35,475 Gwei
5 modifier calls: 4382740-4258622 = 24,823 Gwei
PR Checklist