Quote from: Evil-Knievel on September 26, 2016, 10:39:23 PM

java stack exception as in "maximum allowed AST depth reached?" or a true java stack exception?

True java stack exception. For example:

Code:

{{{{{{{{{{............m[0]=0; }}}}}}.......

Nested 10k deep or so.

Also, it occurs to me that because the java stack depth is non-deterministic (varies machine to machine, or even run-to-run on the same machine) this could be considered a consensus-breaker.

Quote

In my eyes 7 seconds is bad enough Wink

OK. In that case, I would probably suggest switching to a different parsing model. The current generated parser just commonly has too much overhead. The grammar is small and straightforward enough that the current parsing infrastructure is almost certainly overkill. (It also seems like it could probably be made into a "linear" language, without syntactic nesting, which would obviate both the stack depth concerns and the parser complexity concerns.)

Quote

I will send you a BTC from my own savings soon, to express my gratitude for helping me with the parser.
We still have to figure out what to do with this awful FAA ;-) And, generally, with all those other "really interesting attacks".

I'm starting to get bored with banging on the parser and RuntimeEstimator (and increasingly feeling like they should both just be entirely overhauled - replaced with something simpler) so I might "skip ahead" to more interesting stuff soon. Yesterday I just realized a dead simple solution to what I've been considering as the most interesting attack, and the solution adds only a very minor constraint on the vm, so maybe we'll delve into that next.

Quote

And I hope that we will soon see official bounty bug hunting guidelines here, but until then I strongly assume that you will be rewarded by Lannister for sure Wink

Thanks once again for all your help, without you we would be 10 steps behind.

At least 10. Wink

Soon we'll be getting into the "real stuff" - the problems for which I don't see practical solutions being likely, at least without some significant design changes. These are mostly all centered around the difficulty targeting and stuff like that "pseudo-FAA" problem. (I'm still entirely convinced that "per-job" difficulty will be a must, somehow.)