💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "refactor: Header sync optimisations & simplifications":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32740#issuecomment-3559658957)
> I tried rebasing onto #33785 but it wouldn't fix the warning.

Checked this by:
```
₿ git pr 32740
Switched to branch 'pr/32740'
```
Rebasing onto the merge commit of #33785:
```
₿ git rebase HEAD~8 --onto 490cb056f651f4247731e39efab35ef8e8a59833
```
Adding back `const` in commit 9bfcde056df7698ddf7ce9d958d5a9d3f3d0b43a:

ARM 32 build and Linux->Windows cross builds succeed on CI with GNU (GCC) 13.3:
https://github.com/hodlinator/bitcoin/actions/runs/19529971162/job/55910436956#s
...

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "refactor, docs: Embedded ASMap [2/3]: Refactor asmap internals and add documentation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33878#discussion_r2547377106)
(Maybe `ConsumeBit(LE|BE)` would be more appropriate than `DecodeBit(LE|BE)`).

🤔 w0xlt reviewed a pull request: "kernel, validation: Refactor ProcessNewBlock(Headers) to return BlockValidationState"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33856#pullrequestreview-3489553822)
This PR eliminates the ambiguity of the boolean return value and improves the clarity of both the internal and kernel APIs.

ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33856/commits/1f589e1af162c2c2705f0404496c549785f2f545

💬 brunoerg commented on pull request "test: add unit test coverage for the empty leaves path in MerkleComputation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33858#discussion_r2547388515)
nit:
```suggestion
std::vector<uint256> merkle_path = TransactionMerklePath(block, /*position=*/0);
```

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "refactor: Header sync optimisations & simplifications":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32740#discussion_r2547406121)
> Now that #33785 has been merged we hopefully can use `const& ... Assert(` in this PR as long as it's rebased.

The `-Wno-error=dangling-reference` was removed again in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33840/files

👍 brunoerg approved a pull request: "test: add unit test coverage for the empty leaves path in MerkleComputation"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33858#pullrequestreview-3489581346)
code review ACK ffcae82a68104c1992964b26c592b62cbca391bf

It's just a simple test addition to exercise `MerkleComputation` with an empty vector of leaves, it's ok. Note that it just checks the path is empty which is fine since there is a proposal to remove the unused `pmutated` and `proot` (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33805).

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "CMake: Add dynamic test discovery":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33483#issuecomment-3559732640)
concept ACK, fwiw

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "CMake: Add dynamic test discovery":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33483#issuecomment-3559735371)
Looks like there are a bunch of code review comments. Are you still working on this?

👍 hodlinator approved a pull request: "refactor: Header sync optimisations & simplifications"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32740#pullrequestreview-3489612258)
re-ACK de4242f47476769d0a7f3e79e8297ed2dd60d9a4

Only removed `const` from `HeadersGeneratorSetup::chain_start` to work around GCC 13 issue since my previous ACK (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32740#pullrequestreview-3410905600).

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "refactor: Header sync optimisations & simplifications":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32740#discussion_r2547438257)
Aha, that explains why I was getting other results when not rebasing onto latest master (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32740#issuecomment-3559658957).

💬 brunoerg commented on issue "RFC: Do we want to support fuzzing on MacOS?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33731#issuecomment-3559744710)
> Sounds good. So I guess this is up-for-grabs, and a dev with the latest macOS can just update the docs (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/fuzzing.md#macos-hints-for-libfuzzer) with the steps that work with that version?

ACK on doing it.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Re-enable LINT_CI_SANITY_CHECK_COMMIT_SIG":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33888#issuecomment-3559762513)
Looks like it worked, fwiw: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/19545916567/job/55966862251#step:6:151:

```
+ '[' 1 = 1 ']'
+ git log HEAD~10 -1 --format=%H
+ git log HEAD~10 -1 --format=%H
+ mapfile -t KEYS
+ git config user.email ci@ci.ci
+ git config user.name ci
+ gpg --keyserver hkps://keys.openpgp.org --recv-keys E777299FC265DD04793070EB944D35F9AC3DB76A D1DBF2C4B96F2DEBF4C16654410108112E7EA81F 152812300785C96444D3334D17565732E08E5E41 6B002C6EA3F91B1B0DF0C9BC8F617F1200
...

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "cmake: (release) version handling is broken"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31898)

💬 fanquake commented on issue "cmake: (release) version handling is broken":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31898#issuecomment-3559765520)
Closing for now, in favour of #33911, as we might reafactor this in some way. Will follow up there.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "clang-format: Set Bitcoin Core IncludeCategories":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33917#issuecomment-3559773920)
ACK fa7e222a23266e258d82e085f62cbf89d20dc8f3

Thanks for adjusting these.
After this PR we can remove the deprecated ones and add the new options in 17 by regenerating the config.

💬 l0rinc commented on issue "RFC: Do we want to support fuzzing on MacOS?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/33731#issuecomment-3559791440)
> a dev with the latest macOS can just update the docs

Should I revive https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32084?

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "(RFC) kernel: Replace leveldb-based BlockTreeDB with flat-file based store":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32427#issuecomment-3559900892)
Rebased ef1f96134098e73b47bfc988d878422917ceac1d -> a2d5f75a26976ec3292606bec149ef1d325383a2 ([blocktreestore_8](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/blocktreestore_8) -> [blocktreestore_9](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/tree/blocktreestore_9), [compare](https://github.com/TheCharlatan/bitcoin/compare/blocktreestore_8..blocktreestore_9))

* Fixed conflict with #33724
* Updated coinstatsindex compatibility test to only check upgrading the version, not downgrading.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "precalculate SipHash constant salt XORs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30442#discussion_r2547563662)
> a call to GetShortID() without a preceding call to FillShortTxIDSelector() is well defined and will use shorttxidk... as 0

As far as I can see, that is not guaranteed in C++. `CBlockHeaderAndShortTxIDs` has a user-provided default constructor and `shorttxidk0`/`shorttxidk1` are without in-class initialization, so unless `FillShortTxIDSelector()` has run, they hold indeterminate values, not guaranteed zeros.

Either way, based on the serialization code and the constructors, the object is n
...

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "precalculate SipHash constant salt XORs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30442#discussion_r2547568059)
> The tests SaltedOutpointHasherBench* do not exist?

Please see the attached benchmarks in the PR description. They were part of the PR originally, but aren't really useful after this change, doesn't make sense to commit them.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "precalculate SipHash constant salt XORs":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30442#discussion_r2547575869)
I'm not really a fan of that, I explicitly try to make long and expressive commits - it can be soft-wrapped on the client-side by the vertically-challended IDEs :D