Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Using ++i consumes less gas than i++ #104

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Nov 7, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Using ++i consumes less gas than i++ #104

code423n4 opened this issue Nov 7, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working G (Gas Optimization)

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

Reigada

Vulnerability details

Impact

In all the loops, the variable i is incremented using i++. It is known that using ++i costs less gas per iteration than i++.

Proof of Concept

AirdropDistributionMock.sol:97: for (uint i = 0; i < airdropArray.length; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:433: for (uint256 i = 0; i < self.pooledTokens.length; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:535: for (uint256 i = 0; i < numTokens; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:549: for (uint256 i = 0; i < MAX_LOOP_LIMIT; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:574: for (uint256 i = 0; i < numTokens; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:585: for (uint256 i = 0; i < MAX_LOOP_LIMIT; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:648: for (uint256 i = 0; i < numTokens; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:852: for (uint256 i = 0; i < numTokens; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:872: for (uint256 i = 0; i < MAX_LOOP_LIMIT; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:970: for (uint256 i = 0; i < self.pooledTokens.length; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:1031: for (uint256 i = 0; i < numTokens; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:1190: for (uint256 i = 0; i < self.pooledTokens.length; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:1230: for (uint256 i = 0; i < self.pooledTokens.length; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:1341: for (uint256 i = 0; i < amounts.length; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:1440: for (uint256 i = 0; i < self.pooledTokens.length; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:1449: for (uint256 i = 0; i < self.pooledTokens.length; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:1471: for (uint256 i = 0; i < self.pooledTokens.length; i++) {
SwapUtils.sol:1492: for (uint256 i = 0; i < self.pooledTokens.length; i++) {
Vesting.sol:116: for (uint256 i = 0; i < timelocks[_addr].length; i++) {
Vesting.sol:148: for (uint256 i = 0; i < timelocks[_addr].length; i++) {
Vesting.sol:170: for (uint256 i = benVestingIndex[_addr]; i < timelocks[_addr].length; i++) {
helper/test/TestSwapReturnValues.sol:27: for (uint8 i; i < n; i++) {
helper/test/TestSwapReturnValues.sol:95: for (uint8 i = 0; i < n; i++) {
helper/test/TestSwapReturnValues.sol:102: for (uint8 i = 0; i < n; i++) {
Swap.sol:158: for (uint8 i = 0; i < _pooledTokens.length; i++) {
PublicSaleBatchWithdraw.sol:29: for (uint i = 0; i < arrayDays.length; i++) {
PublicSaleBatchWithdraw.sol:36: for (uint i = 0; i < length; i++) {
AirdropDistribution.sol:507: for (uint i = 0; i < airdropArray.length; i++) {

Tools Used

Manual testing

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Use ++i instead of i++ to increment the value of an uint variable.

@code423n4 code423n4 added bug Something isn't working G (Gas Optimization) labels Nov 7, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 7, 2021
@chickenpie347 chickenpie347 added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Jan 3, 2022
@chickenpie347
Copy link
Collaborator

Duplicate of #12

@chickenpie347 chickenpie347 marked this as a duplicate of #12 Jan 3, 2022
@0xean
Copy link
Collaborator

0xean commented Jan 9, 2022

Not a duplicate of #12 which suggests unchecked, this has to do with the pre-increment vs increment.

@0xean 0xean reopened this Jan 9, 2022
@0xean 0xean removed the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Jan 9, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working G (Gas Optimization)
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants