Strange CFG Benchmark Results for SEVM

[cdump]

Hey, I just added Control Flow Graph (CFG) support to my evmole tool and included benchmarks for several open-source tools I found:
CFG Benchmark Results

While SEVM performs very well for selectors/mutability (and for decompilation, though it's not benchmarked), it performs poorly in the CFG benchmark. I suspect I might be using it incorrectly.

Could you take a look at this part of the implementation? https://github.com/cdump/evmole/blob/master/benchmark/providers/sevm/main.mjs#L44

The expected output format is a list of edges between basic blocks, where each block is identified by the bytecode offset of its first opcode. Let me know if I'm misusing SEVM or if there's an alternative way to get accurate CFG results.

[acuarica]

Hey thanks for opening this. Great work with your evmole tool!

I'm at EthDenver this week, but I'll take a look when I have some time.

it performs poorly in the CFG benchmark

It might yes, sevm is not precise in terms of CFG generation. It does loop unroll, so that may lead to different CFGs.

a list of edges between basic blocks, where each block is identified by the bytecode offset of its first opcode

sevm performs basic block cloning. That means that two different basic blocks can have the same offset as id. This is because a single JUMP(I) instruction can have multiple destinations.

[cdump]

Found a bug on my side
Now, the results are much better: https://github.com/cdump/evmole/tree/master?tab=readme-ov-file#control-flow-graph

But anyway, take a look when you come back - there are probably more bugs in my code using SEVM :)

[cdump]

two different basic blocks can have the same offset as id.

that's not a problem and expected, I'm using pc, not block id