starknet_os: os resources test - add 3 more syscalls

[dorimedini-starkware]

No description provided.

[dorimedini-starkware]

• starknet_os: os resources test - add send_message_to_l1 #14143 : 2 dependent PRs (#14144 , #14153 )
• starknet_os: os resources test - add replace_class #14142
• starknet_os: os resources test - support virtual builtins, add sha256 #14141
• starknet_os: define sha256 batch resources constants #14140
• starknet_os: os resources test - add keccak #14139
• starknet_os: os resources test - add 3 more syscalls #14138 👈 (View in Graphite)
• starknet_os: os resources test - remove all fee transfer syscalls #14137
• starknet_os: os resources test - add emit event #14136
• starknet_os: os resources test - add meta tx #14135
• starknet_os: os resources test - measure linear factor, add deploy #14134
• starknet_os: os resources test - library call #14129
• starknet_os: initial test, measure call contract resources #14128
• blockifier_test_utils: add option to deploy from zero in test accounts #14258
• starknet_os_flow_tests: helper function to declare explicit classes #14257
• starknet_os: os resources test - create fixed deployable account #14173
• main

This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking.

[reviewable-StarkWare]

This change is 

[cursor]

PR Summary

Medium Risk
Changes OS program hashes, syscall gas costs, and fee-related regression numbers for 0.14.4; incorrect constants would affect gas accounting and proving compatibility.

Overview
Extends the OS resources regression harness so GetBlockHash, GetClassHashAt, and GetExecutionInfo are exercised in os_resources_test_contract and dropped from the unmeasurable-syscall list in os_resources_test.

That measurement pass refreshes 0.14.4 syscall OS step counts and related Sierra gas constants (GET_BLOCK_HASH, GET_EXECUTION_INFO, etc.), bumps OS / virtual OS program hashes in Cairo constants, program_hash.json, and versioned constants, and updates blockifier syscall/transaction tests plus central systest blob fixtures to match lower reported gas.

^{Reviewed by Cursor Bugbot for commit 716761a. Bugbot is set up for automated code reviews on this repo. Configure here.}

[dorimedini-starkware]

@dorimedini-starkware made 2 comments.
Reviewable status: 2 of 8 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on dorimedini-starkware, yoavGrs, and Yoni-Starkware).

---

crates/blockifier_test_utils/resources/feature_contracts/cairo1/os_resources_test_contract.cairo line 104 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, Yoni-Starkware (Yoni) wrote…

Same OS impl though

Done.

---

crates/blockifier_test_utils/resources/feature_contracts/cairo1/os_resources_test_contract.cairo line 85 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, yoavGrs wrote…

Does whether the block exists or not affect the resource usage?

hmmm... you are correct that this block hash is missing... apparently we only set hashes in the range [CURRENT_BLOCK_NUMBER - BLOCK_HASH_HISTORY_RANGE, CURRENT_BLOCK_NUMBER - 10]. I'll set it to a number in this range

[yoavGrs]

@yoavGrs reviewed 5 files and all commit messages, made 1 comment, and resolved 1 discussion.
Reviewable status: 7 of 8 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on dorimedini-starkware and Yoni-Starkware).

---

crates/blockifier_test_utils/resources/feature_contracts/cairo1/os_resources_test_contract.cairo line 85 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, dorimedini-starkware wrote…

hmmm... you are correct that this block hash is missing... apparently we only set hashes in the range [CURRENT_BLOCK_NUMBER - BLOCK_HASH_HISTORY_RANGE, CURRENT_BLOCK_NUMBER - 10]. I'll set it to a number in this range

It doesn't change the resources. Nice.

[yoavGrs]

Reviewable status: 7 of 8 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on dorimedini-starkware and Yoni-Starkware).

[dorimedini-starkware]

@dorimedini-starkware made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: 6 of 8 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on dorimedini-starkware, yoavGrs, and Yoni-Starkware).

---

crates/blockifier_test_utils/resources/feature_contracts/cairo1/os_resources_test_contract.cairo line 85 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, yoavGrs wrote…

It doesn't change the resources. Nice.

I didn't run the update-expect.
in general, I only start updating the values when the PR is the next one into main, because it can take 15 minutes to do the update rounds and if I maintain it throughout the stack, every gt modify -a will hit conflicts in every single PR up the stack...

[yoavGrs]

@yoavGrs reviewed 3 files and all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on Yoni-Starkware).

[github-actions]

Artifacts upload workflows:

• Started at 2026-06-07T14:30:58Z
• Started at 2026-06-07T14:42:12Z
• Started at 2026-06-07T14:46:30Z

[dorimedini-starkware]

@dorimedini-starkware made 1 comment.
Reviewable status: 3 of 14 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on dorimedini-starkware, yoavGrs, and Yoni-Starkware).

---

crates/blockifier/resources/blockifier_versioned_constants_0_14_4.json line 277 at r6 (raw file):

                "n_memory_holes": 0,
                "builtin_instance_counter": {
                    "range_check_builtin": 3

@Yoni-Starkware I'm not sure why this measurement is different, any ideas?

Code quote:

"range_check_builtin": 3

[Yoni-Starkware]

@Yoni-Starkware reviewed 12 files and all commit messages, made 2 comments, and resolved 1 discussion.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on dorimedini-starkware).

---

crates/blockifier/resources/blockifier_versioned_constants_0_14_4.json line 277 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, dorimedini-starkware wrote…

@Yoni-Starkware I'm not sure why this measurement is different, any ideas?

Why changed assert_le -> assert_nn_le

[dorimedini-starkware]

@dorimedini-starkware resolved 1 discussion.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on dorimedini-starkware).