ERC-6492 vs ERC-8187

Signature Validation for Predeploy Contracts compared with Token Puller.

No shared functions

0 shared · 1 vs 7 functions · 0% of the smaller surface

ERC-8187 lists ERC-6492 in its requires field but declares no inheritance in its interface, so any surface it inherits is not counted here.

🤝 Shared (0)

None.

0x1626ba7e isValidSignature(bytes32,bytes)

`0xd31cc1b6`	`approvePull(address,address,uint256)`
`0x6165a581`	`maxPullable(address,address,uint256)`
`0x35e0fb4f`	`permitPull(address,address,address,uint256,uint256,bytes)`
`0xcb29c658`	`pullAllowance(address,address,address)`
`0xef3ee967`	`pullFrom(address,address,address,uint256)`
`0x11c794dc`	`pullFromWithPermit(address,address,address,uint256,uint256,bytes)`
`0xdf987337`	`transferPullAllowance(address,address,address,uint256)`

Both surfaces parsed from the canonical specifications: ERC-6492 · ERC-8187