💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "guix: bump time-machine to dc4842797bfdc5f9f3f5f725bf189c2b68bd6b5a":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29651#issuecomment-2034978341)
```
uname --machine && find guix-build-$(git rev-parse --short=12 HEAD)/output/ -type f -print0 | env LC_ALL=C sort -z | xargs -r0 sha256sum
riscv64
2cf27183bc9964708fe12465fa3bb216de6e109ecc9f7ead5d6eff29a178eca8 guix-build-cf5faf73c991/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
ad97244ca2ebe9fe715bcfb9838d30436cb1e797d32cb6435615df5d35f564d9 guix-build-cf5faf73c991/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-cf5faf73c991-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
ab34959b100669ebeca4c174660b26ca8eb6c93d33282459
...

⚠️ achow101 opened an issue: "Compilation failure when using `--enable-fuzz` and `--enable-debug` due to inline asm"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29801)
### Is there an existing issue for this?

- [X] I have searched the existing issues

### Current behaviour

Configure with
```
./configure --enable-fuzz --enable-debug --with-sanitizers=address,fuzzer,undefined,integer CC=clang CXX=clang++
```

Compile fails:
```
crypto/sha256_sse4.cpp:44:9: error: expected relocatable expression
44 | "shl $0x6,%2;"
| ^
<inline asm>:1:1882: note: instantiated into assembly here
crypto/sha256_sse4.cpp:44:9: error: expected r
...

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Compilation failure when using `--enable-fuzz` and `--enable-debug` due to inline asm":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29801#issuecomment-2034994885)
Recalling the IRC discussion, I presume this happens since `-O0` in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16435 ?

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Compilation failure when using `--enable-fuzz` and `--enable-debug` due to inline asm":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29801#issuecomment-2035002791)
Ref:

```
1782024-04-01T18:08:36 <cfields> can repro with: clang++ -std=c++20 -O0 -fsanitize=fuzzer -c crypto/sha256_sse4.cpp -o out.o
```

https://www.erisian.com.au/bitcoin-core-dev/log-2024-04-02.html

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Compilation failure when using `--enable-fuzz` and `--enable-debug` due to inline asm":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29801#issuecomment-2035003353)
The broken combination is `clang++ -std=c++20 -O0 -fsanitize=address -c crypto/sha256_sse4.cpp -o out.o`, pointed out by Cory. Happens for me with Clang-18.

💬 fanquake commented on issue "Compilation failure when using `--enable-fuzz` and `--enable-debug` due to inline asm":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29801#issuecomment-2035010355)
I guess the next step is to followup / file an issue with LLVM. I've got #29796 open which may "fix" this by just dropping `-O0`, depending on the outcome of discussion.

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: Remove another leftover from #29648":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29797#issuecomment-2035021336)
Guix Build (aarch64):
```bash
8e7bddb8fa49c857bc9a815a7f27f2d60f8a2f8955966eff467ee86c0d0776f6 guix-build-3cb80febb876/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
de0c0624b55418b6638b4852cbe4527c5fb4a2ccbb82d442e5dff0febc947a70 guix-build-3cb80febb876/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-3cb80febb876-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
5f37064b7496125b90f7df1fda7df3e6545149274bf737361579c0e9be94f6f8 guix-build-3cb80febb876/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-3cb80febb876-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
02ad13
...

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#pullrequestreview-1977282272)
approach ACK

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1550035286)
needs doc?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1550033829)
nit: this is unnecessary

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1550056609)
nit: documentation please, e.g. number of elements to track

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1550045138)
+1, was going to say this should be removed in 2ef71c73582be554e565ada3f8a6ca77c2cd79f1, or say we are avoiding false warnings instead of preventing tampering of adjusted time

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1550042121)
Or its own rpc commit?

💬 vostrnad commented on issue "IBD performance regression in 27.0rc1 on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29785#issuecomment-2035080712)
> Can you also let us know if you're using any particular config options etc.

Beyond the bare minimum (`-connect`, `-datadir`, RPC user/pass etc.) I'm just increasing dbcache and enabling pruning, but neither of those should kick in at this block height. I'll test again using the defaults just to be sure.

> how are you able to perform so many runs in such a short amount of time? Do you have access to a lot of compute?

I'm not doing full IBD, just to block 120,000. As much as I'd like to
...

💬 mzumsande commented on issue "IBD performance regression in 27.0rc1 on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29785#issuecomment-2035090717)
Does it also appear with `-reindex` (without a second node)?

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "refactor: interfaces, make 'createTransaction' less error-prone ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/807#discussion_r1550107069)
It's ok, I got confused at first glance but then read more about how `util::Result` is being used in all our code.

https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/blob/0d509bab45d292caeaf34600e57b5928757c6005/src/util/result.h#L19-L33

💬 sipa commented on issue "IBD performance regression in 27.0rc1 on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29785#issuecomment-2035114828)
Or even with `-reindex-chainstate` (which does even less)?

💬 theuni commented on pull request "[RFC] Switch and/or align debugging flags (back) to `-Og`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29796#issuecomment-2035139205)
Concept ACK.

I think msan is a good proxy for what we want enabled. [From its docs](https://releases.llvm.org/18.1.1/tools/clang/docs/MemorySanitizer.html):

> To get a reasonable performance add -O1 or higher. To get meaningful stack traces in error messages add -fno-omit-frame-pointer. To get perfect stack traces you may need to disable inlining (just use -O1) and tail call elimination (-fno-optimize-sibling-calls).


From [gcc's docs](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Option
...

💬 drkhero commented on issue "rpc method removeprunedfunds should take an array of txids":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29466#issuecomment-2035144836)
@furszy @glozow Still waiting on this issue to be fixed. Ryan has been waiting for a while now. Thanks!

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "cli: Detect port errors in rpcconnect and rpcport":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29521#issuecomment-2035153866)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29521/commits/cb4f9fc5847a7e53fe45d54b1fddf504dee5af82

The changes in `bitcoin-cli.cpp` since the last ACK look good to me, and the test coverage is more extensive.

Tested with `make check` and running the functional test suite.

I also verified that passing bad ports to `rpcconnect` and `rpcport` trigger the warning.