fix incorrect logic for missing coverage

Author: LouisTsai-Csie

src/ethereum_test_specs/benchmark.py

@@ -66,7 +66,9 @@ def generate_repeated_code(
         available_space = max_code_size - overhead
         max_iterations = available_space // len(repeated_code)
 
-        code = setup + Op.JUMPDEST + repeated_code * max_iterations + cleanup + Op.JUMP(len(setup))
+        # TODO: Unify the PUSH0 and PUSH1 usage.
+        code = setup + Op.JUMPDEST + repeated_code * max_iterations + cleanup
+        code += Op.JUMP(len(setup)) if len(setup) > 0 else Op.PUSH0 + Op.JUMP
         self._validate_code_size(code, fork)
 
         return code

tests/benchmark/test_worst_bytecode.py

@@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ def test_worst_create(
     )
 
     code = JumpLoopGenerator(setup=setup, attack_block=attack_block).generate_repeated_code(
-        attack_block, Bytecode(), Bytecode(), fork
+        repeated_code=attack_block, setup=setup, cleanup=Bytecode(), fork=fork
     )
 
     tx = Transaction(

tests/benchmark/test_worst_compute.py

@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ def test_worst_calldatasize(
 ) -> None:
     """Test running a block with as many CALLDATASIZE as possible."""
     tx = JumpLoopGenerator(
-        setup=Bytecode(), attack_block=Op.POP(Op.CALLDATASIZE)
+        setup=Bytecode(), attack_block=Op.POP(Op.CALLDATASIZE), cleanup=Bytecode()
     ).generate_transaction(pre, gas_benchmark_value, fork)
     tx.data = Bytes(b"\x00" * calldata_length)
 

tests/benchmark/test_worst_memory.py

@@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ def test_worst_codecopy(
     attack_block = Op.CODECOPY(src_dst, src_dst, Op.DUP1)  # DUP1 copies size.
 
     code = JumpLoopGenerator(setup=setup, attack_block=attack_block).generate_repeated_code(
-        attack_block, Bytecode(), Bytecode(), fork
+        repeated_code=attack_block, setup=setup, cleanup=Bytecode(), fork=fork
     )
 
     # The code generated above is not guaranteed to be of max_code_size, so