✅ All reviewers have approved.

@jochem-brouwer could you have any of @marioevz / @lightclient / @MarekM25 (or whoever is best informed on this) give it a review/approve before I merge it?

If one of the clients could check if the changed test files match their implementation that would be great 😄 👍

I checked the differences and found a couple of things:

• The gas in our JSON files was outdated, but this was a no-op because EEST has the formulas built-in and disregarded the value in the JSON.
• The mul_ files were not deleted from the EEST repository, rather they were redirected to be executed by the MSM precompile.

I updated the JSON files in EEST with the ones in this PR and the generated files were identical.

Nevertheless I will open a PR in EEST to update them just for them to be up to date, although we will keep the mul_ JSON files.

It is actually a good point regarding the mul files to redirect those to MSM. I should do so as well, but for clarity I think it is better (in here) to put those inputs/outputs into the MSM file to make it clear it should be ran by that precompile? (Since the mul precompile does not exist anymore)

I have updated this PR, @marioevz could you please re-check? I have now kept in the mul files (both failing and succeeding ones) and left a comment in the test file readme to ensure people know these should now be executed by the MSM precompiles.

I wanted to keep the original formatting in the json files, but my VSCode keeps messing up the indentation which is why the diff here looks super huge (only the Gas lines should be changed here!).

@g11tech this is merge ready 😄 👍