From 42d1249d61f4a1446a69b194526d3192a8a27ba5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sina Mahmoodi Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 15:06:02 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] update with flexibility --- docs/ethsimulatev1-notes.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/docs/ethsimulatev1-notes.md b/docs/ethsimulatev1-notes.md index 29fd2250..1ad429c1 100644 --- a/docs/ethsimulatev1-notes.md +++ b/docs/ethsimulatev1-notes.md @@ -201,4 +201,4 @@ When it comes to contract override behavior, specifically precompile override, t 1. As specified above to allow replacement of precompiles by EVM code and to allow those same precompiles to be relocated to another access for fallback behavior. 2. Allow users to pass in a set of pre-computed calls for an address, i.e. direct mapping of input to output. -The second approach has better UX for simple use-cases such as faking a signature via ecrecover. It also allows for getting the same gas usage as a real precompile execution. Nevertheless it imposes changes to the EVM interpreter code, which has been otherwise avoided, without enabling new features. Hence the spec proposes the first alternative. +The second approach has better UX for simple use-cases such as faking a signature via ecrecover. It also allows for getting the same gas usage as a real precompile execution. The simpler UX comes at cost of flexibility. Overriding with EVM code is general. It also imposes changes to the EVM interpreter code, which has been otherwise avoided, without enabling new features. Hence the spec proposes the first alternative.