Platform: Code4rena
Start Date: 20/05/2022
Pot Size: $1,000,000 USDC
Total HM: 4
Participants: 59
Period: 14 days
Judge: leastwood
Id: 128
League: ETH
Rank: 42/59
Findings: 1
Award: $450.19
🌟 Selected for report: 0
🚀 Solo Findings: 0
🌟 Selected for report: Dravee
Also found by: 0x1f8b, 0x29A, 0xalpharush, Chom, Czar102, Hawkeye, IllIllI, MaratCerby, MiloTruck, NoamYakov, OriDabush, RoiEvenHaim, Spearbit, Tadashi, TerrierLover, TomJ, asutorufos, cccz, cmichel, csanuragjain, defsec, delfin454000, djxploit, ellahi, foobar, gzeon, hake, hickuphh3, ignacio, ilan, joestakey, kaden, mayo, ming, oyc_109, peritoflores, rfa, sach1r0, sashik_eth, shung, sirhashalot, twojoy, zer0dot, zkhorse
450.1873 USDC - $450.19
[1] Using --x uses 5 less gas than x--.
Affected code:
[2] Using ++x uses 5 less gas than x += 1.
Affected code:
[3] Consider using named constant instead of recalculating value on each function execution.
Affected code:
[4] Consider tightly pack the struct.
Affected code:
[5] It is possible to combine iterations in for-loop from 0 to min(orderParameters.consideration.length, orderParameters.offer.length) And then second for-loop from min(orderParameters.consideration.length, orderParameters.offer.length) to max(orderParameters.consideration.length, orderParameters.offer.length)
Affected code:
#0 - HardlyDifficult
2022-06-26T15:55:57Z
Using --x uses 5 less gas than x--. Using ++x uses 5 less gas than x += 1.
These should offer small savings.
Consider using named constant instead of recalculating value on each function execution.
These instances impact the constructor only. Since end-users are not impacted it's not clear these are worthwhile changes to make.
Consider tightly pack the struct.
Packing can offer a non-trivial savings.
It is possible to combine iterations in for-loop from 0 to min(orderParameters.consideration.length, orderParameters.offer.length)
This would complicate the implementation and not offer much of a savings. It's not clear this is a worthwhile change to consider.