refactor(spec-specs): Refactor specs to be more coherent wrt gas acco…

[fselmo]

🗒️ Description

I went back through and refactored the specs to be more succinct wrt gas accounting, in an effort to move these changes out of this branch and into its own PR to be applied across all forks.

• Check all static gas we can before state accesses
• Early exit on static access checks

I have similar changes without the BAL tracking in its own branch and I think this will make it easier to agree on here, refactor there, and then eventually to rebase these changes back into here once we agree on a good design.

A good idea for reviewers here is to diff against forks/amsterdam instead of eips/amsterdam-eip-7928 so we can see the minimal set of changes required to the underlying base spec.

---

Note: This is still a WIP as I'm going to look back over and make sure I didn't miss anything but putting it here early so we can have eyes on it.

🔗 Related Issues or PRs

N/A.

✅ Checklist

• All: Ran fast tox checks to avoid unnecessary CI fails, see also Code Standards and Enabling Pre-commit Checks:

  uvx tox -e static

• All: PR title adheres to the repo standard - it will be used as the squash commit message and should start type(scope):.
• All: Set appropriate labels for the changes (only maintainers can apply labels).

Cute Animal Picture

[fselmo]

This actually brings the changes back to what it used to be (no changes once PR'd to forks/amsterdam) as there is no need to alter the logic here.

[fselmo]

This also returns the logic to what it is, no need to change this unless we want the is_cold_access check on all operations. I think we can decide this on the isolated PR as well. I'd rather not alter too much of the underlying code in our changes so we can more easily rebase up to eip-7928.

[fselmo]

Much more succinct. All opcodes here should have a similar flow.

[fselmo]

This is unnecessary. By the time we get code for the code_address, we already have either the original address or the delegated address as the code_address, so we can simply call get_account(state, code_address).code, essentially.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
⚠️ Please upload report for BASE (eips/amsterdam/eip-7928@ba0eec1). Learn more about missing BASE report.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                    Coverage Diff                     @@
##             eips/amsterdam/eip-7928    #1897   +/-   ##
==========================================================
  Coverage                           ?   86.25%           
==========================================================
  Files                              ?      538           
  Lines                              ?    34561           
  Branches                           ?     3224           
==========================================================
  Hits                               ?    29809           
  Misses                             ?     4165           
  Partials                           ?      587           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	86.25% <ø> (?)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[fselmo]

I'm going to merge this as it's in a much cleaner state than the current specs and actually fixes a bug for CALL in static context where we should do this static check as early as we can, once value is popped from the stack, and before any state access.

I added a test here for this as well. We should put up a subsequent PR if we'd like to make any amendments to this design before we factor out these changes into its own changeset to PR against forks/amsterdam.

We should make sure to reference these changes when reviewing a subsequent PR.