Remove ERC165Storage #3880
Merged
Remove ERC165Storage #3880
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
frangio
reviewed
Dec 16, 2022
Co-authored-by: Francisco <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Francisco <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Francisco <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Francisco <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Francisco <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Francisco <[email protected]>
…es/openzeppelin-contracts into remove-erc165storage
frangio
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 19, 2022
Co-authored-by: Francisco <[email protected]>
This was referenced Sep 10, 2024
This was referenced Sep 10, 2024
This was referenced Sep 12, 2024
This was referenced Nov 9, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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 #3641
The use of storage makes it more expensive to execute supportsInterface, and also to deploy the contract. Deployment costs are not necessarily worse though, because when storage is not used it requires more bytecode, but probably not enough to match it. After verifying that the percentage of people using
ERC165storageas opposed to theERC165version is considerably lower, we are removing theERC165Storagecontract.PR Checklist