💬 fanquake commented on pull request "log: Use `__func__` for -logsourcelocations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34088#issuecomment-3666065446)
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/20307712389/job/58333931476?pr=34088#step:11:3126:
```bash
/home/admin/actions-runner/_work/_temp/src/test/logging_tests.cpp:135:120: error: no member named 'function_name' in 'SourceLocation'
135 | expected.push_back(tfm::format("[%s:%s] [%s] %s%s", util::RemovePrefix(loc.file_name(), "./"), loc.line(), loc.function_name(), prefix, msg));
|
...

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Add initial vectorized chacha20 implementation for 2-3x speedup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34083#discussion_r2627673584)
Alternatively, with a compile-time loop:

```c++
/** Perform add/xor/rotate for the round function */
template <size_t BITS, size_t I>
ALWAYS_INLINE void arr_add_xor_rot(std::array<vec256, I>& arr0, const std::array<vec256, I>& arr1, std::array<vec256, I>& arr2)
{
[&]<size_t... ITER>(std::index_sequence<ITER...>) {
((
arr0[ITER] += arr1[ITER],
arr2[ITER] ^= arr0[ITER],
vec_rotl<BITS>(arr2[ITER])
), ...);
}(std::make_index_sequence<I>())
...

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Add initial vectorized chacha20 implementation for 2-3x speedup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34083#discussion_r2627688908)
See branch here: https://github.com/theuni/bitcoin/commits/chacha20-vectorized/

I decided to exclude the impls which require runtime detection from this PR, as I think how that should be done is a separate conversation.

To answer your question more specifically: some impls may require different compilation flags (`-mavx2`/`-mavx512vl`), which have to be in their own compilation units.

💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "log: Use `__func__` for -logsourcelocations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34088#issuecomment-3666122528)
Concept ACK! I've turned off `-logsourcelocations` since it wasn't practical to use anymore for me after #32604. This would allow me to turn it back on.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Add initial vectorized chacha20 implementation for 2-3x speedup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34083#discussion_r2627732760)
` if constexpr` certainly makes more sense where possible. I'll have a look, thanks!

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "log: Use `__func__` for -logsourcelocations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34088#discussion_r2627752316)
> This seems like it could silently make some places use the wrong function name.

Not with `function_name_short()`, though? I think `SourceLocation::function_name()` behaving identical to `std::source_location::function_name()` is desirable, letting users explicitly choose between the stdlib behaviour or our custom behaviour?

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "[30.x] Finalise v30.1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34092#pullrequestreview-3588583767)
ACK 2a21824b1190968ee8ba3120400c00e56be10591, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK.

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "log: Use `__func__` for -logsourcelocations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34088#discussion_r2627773419)
Eh, good point. It compiles for me but unsure how it'll behave across platforms.

👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "[30.x] Finalise v30.1"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34092)

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Add initial vectorized chacha20 implementation for 2-3x speedup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34083#discussion_r2627863562)
Because they're compiler-specific, the code makes no assumptions about the size/structure/alignment of vec256. The only accesses are via `operator[]`. So afaik, there's no need to check for this.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "move-only: MAX_BLOCK_TIME_GAP to src/qt":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/919#issuecomment-3666304646)
Looks like the valgrind fuzz times out, but this seems unrelated. Probably needs the timeout bumped.

🤔 ismaelsadeeq reviewed a pull request: "kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32317#pullrequestreview-3587725625)
Concept ACK

ACK first four commits, I think the remaining commits can even be made better.
comments are inline

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32317#discussion_r2627058813)
In "consensus: Use Coin span in GetP2SHSigOpCount" 5709d073e06280c915e7d74e8f49e4904598c348

nit: here and other places, these new variables should be snake case?

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32317#discussion_r2627185458)
In "consensus: Use Coin span in GetP2SHSigOpCount" 5709d073e06280c915e7d74e8f49e4904598c348

Here and other commits.
Sorted in what order?

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32317#discussion_r2627829017)
Since we are doing this, I think this should also be separated into two functions.
1. `EnforceBIP30` — a method that performs BIP30 validation.
2. `SpendBlock` — for each transaction in the block, checks that the outputs it is spending exist, spends them, and populates the `CBlockUndo` data structure.

This would move us a step closer to non-contextual block validation by allowing us to validate using just the block data and undo data. It would also make testing easier, and removing BIP30 af
...

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32317#discussion_r2627860099)
In "validation: Add SpendBlock function" c937b12745971435111eab948e505580754d56bd

> The goal is to move logic requiring access to the
CCoinsViewCache out of ConnectBlock and to the new SpendBlock method.
SpendBlock will in future handle all UTXO set interactions that
previously took place in ConnectBlock.

This is counter to the objective of the PR; we are still accessing the UTXO set in this block validation function.
My hope was that we would have two UTXO-accessing validation functions that
...

💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on pull request "kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32317#discussion_r2627840199)
In "validation: Add SpendBlock function" c937b12745971435111eab948e505580754d56bd
why duplicate this, I think we should just add a comment warning that we expect they are already executed before?

📝 fanquake converted_to_draft a pull request: "doc: clarify libbitcoinkernel usage in libraries design"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34042)
The libraries design document was out of sync with the current bitcoinkernel implementation and its consumers. It claimed that libbitcoin_node links against libbitcoin_kernel and that the kernel library only depends on consensus, crypto, and util, which is not true for the current CMake targets.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "wallet, doc: clarify the coin selection filters that enforce cluster count":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34037#issuecomment-3666323493)
cc @murchandamus

👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "move-only: MAX_BLOCK_TIME_GAP to src/qt"
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/919#pullrequestreview-3588731689)
ACK fa5ed16aa4d9dbe3ed47cb53f3cb15b0685a2b96, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK.

💬 theuni commented on pull request "Add initial vectorized chacha20 implementation for 2-3x speedup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/34083#discussion_r2627886053)
This is actually doing the opposite.. it's keeping the vectorized impl from having to worry about this case. In the current code, we have:
```c++
++j12;
if (!j12) ++j13;
...
input[8] = j12;
input[9] = j13;
```

So effectively `input[8]` and `input[9]` are treated as a single `uint64_t`. It's not possible to express "cast to `uint64_t` elements and increment" or "increment and overflow over there" with the vector extensions, so it turned out to be easier to just forbid the overflow cases
...