Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs: clarify skip_contract_check=True can result in undefined behavior #3386

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 7, 2023
Merged

docs: clarify skip_contract_check=True can result in undefined behavior #3386

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions docs/interfaces.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -75,6 +75,10 @@ The ``default_return_value`` parameter can be used to handle ERC20 tokens affect
ERC20(USDT).transfer(msg.sender, 1, default_return_value=True) # returns True
ERC20(USDT).transfer(msg.sender, 1) # reverts because nothing returned

.. warning::

When ``skip_contract_check=True`` is used and the called function returns data (ex.: ``x: uint256 = SomeContract.foo(skip_contract_check=True)``, no guarantees are provided by the compiler as to the validity of the returned value. In other words, it is undefined behavior what happens if the called contract did not exist. In particular, the returned value might point to garbage memory. It is therefore recommended to only use ``skip_contract_check=True`` to call contracts which have been manually ensured to exist at the time of the call.

Importing Interfaces
====================

Expand Down