You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Context and scope
We have been routinely running up against code size limits for validator-manager contracts, with ERC20TokenStakingManager currently only having ~500 bytes of headroom before hitting the cap, and NativeTokenStakingManager having ~1200 bytes of headroom.
This has prevented us from including external getters for state variables, which are necessary to implement proper tooling for the contracts.
Discussion and alternatives
Would externalizing the churn tracker help us save on code size? Externalizing the churn tracker would also help other implementations include it, which would be helpful because it is consensus-critical.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Context and scope
We have been routinely running up against code size limits for
validator-manager
contracts, withERC20TokenStakingManager
currently only having ~500 bytes of headroom before hitting the cap, andNativeTokenStakingManager
having ~1200 bytes of headroom.This has prevented us from including external getters for state variables, which are necessary to implement proper tooling for the contracts.
Discussion and alternatives
Would externalizing the churn tracker help us save on code size? Externalizing the churn tracker would also help other implementations include it, which would be helpful because it is consensus-critical.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: