PoC: Add initial Revive support

[pkhry]

Description

See this issue

Re-adds Revive support to foundry-compilers.

This PR exists to simplify the code and remove unnecessary implementations that were initially added.

Also this PR integrates resolc into MultiCompiler struct which is used in foundry to compile sources based on the file extension provided. Now MultiCompiler will use resolc by default instead of solc.

used [email protected]+commit.7893614a.Darwin.appleclang and [email protected]+commit.ee650cf.llvm-18.1.8 for testing.

Issues

• Imports are not resolved correctly right now, so some of the tests are failing.

• Liberal use of cloning to not deal with ownership for the PoC.(mostly solc and Compiler::Input handling).

• ResolcContract has toplevel fields that were never populated during testing, namely abi, userdoc, devdoc. Those fields are inside solc_metadata inside metadata field. ResolcContract is based on this struct.

• Yul output should in which form? We now fail right now as we can't construct a full contract from one field.

TODOS

• structure returned errors between solc, yul and resolc error kinds for resolc invocation
• Error out on contracts with unsupportedsolc versions.
• find a way to run the integration test-suite for both resolc and solc when using MultiCompiler in the calls without introducing flat out code duplication.

Failing tests

can_checkout_repo, can_apply_libraries, can_apply_libraries_with_remappings, can_handle_nested_test_absolute_imports, can_compile_sparse_with_link_references

example error output from resolc:

"Contract `src/LinkTest.sol:LinkTest` compiling error: The contract `src/LinkTest.sol:LinkTest` LLVM IR generator definition pass error: Library `src/MyLib.sol:MyLib` not found in the projectThe contract `src/LinkTest.sol:LinkTest` LLVM IR generator definition pass error: Library `src/MyLib.sol:MyLib` not found in the project"

see issue

can_compile_configured

No ir field present inside Contract in the compilation output.
Should ir_optimized be used instead then?

can_compile_yul_sample, yul_remappings_ignored

object "SimpleStore" {
  code {
    datacopy(0, dataoffset("Runtime"), datasize("Runtime"))
    return(0, datasize("Runtime"))
  }
  object "Runtime" {
    code {
      calldatacopy(0, 0, 36) // write calldata to memory
    }
  }
}

Given the snippet above. resolc will fail with:

"Yul object `./foundry-revive-compiler/test-data/yul-sample/SimpleStore.yul` parsing error: Syntax error: 6:3 Objects must be named as '<name>' (deploy) and '<name>_deployed' (runtime)"

However the error doesn't happen when we call

solc --strict-assembly ./foundry-revive-compiler/test-data/yul-sample/SimpleStore.yul

The error is happening here: click me

can_handle_nested_absolute_imports

see foundry-rs/foundry#2706

can_parse_doc

solidity snippet used:

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0-only
pragma solidity 0.8.17;

/// @title Not an ERC20.
/// @author Notadev
/// @notice Do not use this.
/// @dev This is not an ERC20 implementation.
/// @custom:experimental This is an experimental contract.
interface INotERC20 {
    /// @notice Transfer tokens.
    /// @dev Transfer `amount` tokens to account `to`.
    /// @param to Target account.
    /// @param amount Transfer amount.
    /// @return A boolean value indicating whether the operation succeeded.
    function transfer(address to, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);

    /// @notice Transfer some tokens.
    /// @dev Emitted when transfer.
    /// @param from Source account.
    /// @param to Target account.
    /// @param value Transfer amount.
    event Transfer(address indexed from, address indexed to, uint256 value);

    /// @notice Insufficient balance for transfer.
    /// @dev Needed `required` but only `available` available.
    /// @param available Balance available.
    /// @param required Requested amount to transfer.
    error InsufficientBalance(uint256 available, uint256 required);
}

contract NotERC20 is INotERC20 {
    /// @inheritdoc INotERC20
    function transfer(address to, uint256 amount) external returns (bool) {
        return false;
    }
}

The test fails becuase INotERC20 has no userdoc or devdoc for some reason, while NotERC20 has the userdoc and devdoc but not all fields are populated.

consistent_bytecode

Contract.ir is missing, we only have ir_optimized from resolc

[Brianspha]

Please remove these tests

[pkhry]

but why most of them were there in the first place, like most of them got removed anyways.
do you think leaving test that check things below are useless?

• version parsing
• compiling a small .json example

[Brianspha]

I had added these just to check if the code i wrote was fine im not sure if they added any value since its just simple assertions, but i suppose if they ok then no need to remove

[Brianspha]

Please remove these comments

[pkhry]

which "these"? a lot of the comments ended up being outdated or redundant.

[Brianspha]

The ones above new

[Brianspha]

Ideally we would want to error out if the solc being used is less than 0.8.0. i recall we dont support compiling contracts with versions lower than that as such we need to check during initialization for the version of solc being used

[pkhry]

Yup, ResolcRestrictions still need to be integrated into the compilation pipeline

[Brianspha]

Should we not check if the revive path exists to avoid issues down the line?

[pkhry]

Yup

[Brianspha]

I would say instead of using the from we implement custom deserializer to ensure we check for direct abi/userdoc/devdoc and and fields before falling back to metadata values since some revive outputs include these directly.

[pkhry]

Can you provide a snippet of solidity code where upon compiling we actually get the docs back on toplevel struct?