The Missing POP: How I Ported a Yul Contract to Huff by Reading Every Opcode
The article discusses the author's experience porting a Yul contract to Huff while managing the EVM stack. The transition revealed a bug that was not immediately apparent, highlighting the differences in stack management between the two languages. The author emphasizes the importance of a testing harness that ensured both implementations behaved identically.
- ▪The contract is an opcode dispatcher that routes funds through multi-hop swap paths across various DEX families.
- ▪Yul provides a readable reference implementation, while Huff allows for optimized control over the dispatch path.
- ▪The testing harness ensures that if Yul and Huff ever disagree, it triggers a failure in the continuous integration process.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
try { if(localStorage) { let currentUser = localStorage.getItem('current_user'); if (currentUser) { currentUser = JSON.parse(currentUser); if (currentUser.id === 3951696) { document.getElementById('article-show-container').classList.add('current-user-is-article-author'); } } } } catch (e) { console.error(e); } Andrei Mashukov Posted on May 26 The Missing POP: How I Ported a Yul Contract to Huff by Reading Every Opcode #solidity #ethereum #evm #mev A war story about hand-managing the EVM stack, two words of litter left behind a CALL, and the debug trace that finally made the drift visible. I had a contract that worked. Then I rewrote it in a second language so it would behave the same way, faster — and it didn't. The bug wasn't a crash.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at DEV.to (Top).
Discussion
0 commentsMore from DEV.to (Top)
