💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: remove usage of DBOOST_NO_CXX98_FUNCTION_BASE":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137249188)
I could only reproduce inside of depends, which has boost 1.81, which is fixed, so LGTM, I guess. :shrug:
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137249188)
I could only reproduce inside of depends, which has boost 1.81, which is fixed, so LGTM, I guess. :shrug:
⚠️ kosuodhmwa opened an issue: "Where is the bitcoin.conf file located?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30190)
can't find it on ~/bitcoin - and also not in its subdirectories.
Do i need to create it in ~/bitcoin/src (if the "bitcoind" executable is located there after compilation, as in my case).
Thank you very much for your feedback(s).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30190)
can't find it on ~/bitcoin - and also not in its subdirectories.
Do i need to create it in ~/bitcoin/src (if the "bitcoind" executable is located there after compilation, as in my case).
Thank you very much for your feedback(s).
💬 kosuodhmwa commented on issue "Where is the bitcoin.conf file located?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30190#issuecomment-2137307322)
or do i need to create it in the hidden bitcoind data directory on ~/.bitcoin ?
it also not exists there so it seems
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30190#issuecomment-2137307322)
or do i need to create it in the hidden bitcoind data directory on ~/.bitcoin ?
it also not exists there so it seems
💬 vasild commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP+NATPMP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1618807661)
On my Linux distro I have:
```cpp
struct nlmsghdr {
__u32 nlmsg_len;
...
#define NLMSG_OK(nlh,len) ((len) >= (int)sizeof(struct nlmsghdr) && \
(nlh)->nlmsg_len >= sizeof(struct nlmsghdr) && \
(nlh)->nlmsg_len <= (len))
```
So, the second argument of `NLMSG_OK()` - `len` is compared against 1. `(int)sizeof...` and 2. `...->nlmsg_len` (which is `__u32`). The only difference on FreeBSD is that in 2. it is c
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1618807661)
On my Linux distro I have:
```cpp
struct nlmsghdr {
__u32 nlmsg_len;
...
#define NLMSG_OK(nlh,len) ((len) >= (int)sizeof(struct nlmsghdr) && \
(nlh)->nlmsg_len >= sizeof(struct nlmsghdr) && \
(nlh)->nlmsg_len <= (len))
```
So, the second argument of `NLMSG_OK()` - `len` is compared against 1. `(int)sizeof...` and 2. `...->nlmsg_len` (which is `__u32`). The only difference on FreeBSD is that in 2. it is c
...
👋 fanquake's pull request is ready for review: "build: remove usage of BOOST_NO_CXX98_FUNCTION_BASE"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189)
💬 cbergqvist commented on pull request "util: add BitSet":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30160#discussion_r1618814697)
Added `std::conditional_t<(BITS <= 16), bitset_detail::IntBitSet<uint16_t>, ... ` and removed the `I()`, wrote unit test in bc36241f5a0a23d16645155eb819e94b0db2813e, and it indeed proves you are correct. Right now it cannot occur since `IntBitSet<uint32_t>` is the smallest we go, but better not to leave loaded footguns lying around.
<details>
<summary>Test Log</summary>
```
$ src/test/test_bitcoin -t bitset_tests
...
Running 1 test case...
test/bitset_tests.cpp(18): error: in "bitset_
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30160#discussion_r1618814697)
Added `std::conditional_t<(BITS <= 16), bitset_detail::IntBitSet<uint16_t>, ... ` and removed the `I()`, wrote unit test in bc36241f5a0a23d16645155eb819e94b0db2813e, and it indeed proves you are correct. Right now it cannot occur since `IntBitSet<uint32_t>` is the smallest we go, but better not to leave loaded footguns lying around.
<details>
<summary>Test Log</summary>
```
$ src/test/test_bitcoin -t bitset_tests
...
Running 1 test case...
test/bitset_tests.cpp(18): error: in "bitset_
...
💬 maflcko commented on issue "Where is the bitcoin.conf file located?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30190#issuecomment-2137323745)
Does https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/files.md help?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30190#issuecomment-2137323745)
Does https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/files.md help?
💬 maflcko commented on issue "Where is the bitcoin.conf file located?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30190#issuecomment-2137324927)
Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base.
General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat, or one of the Bitcoin subreddits, or any other place that you feel is well suited.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30190#issuecomment-2137324927)
Usually the issue tracker is used to track technical issues related to the Bitcoin Core code base.
General bitcoin questions and/or support requests are best directed to the [Bitcoin StackExchange](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com) or the `#bitcoin` IRC channel on Libera Chat, or one of the Bitcoin subreddits, or any other place that you feel is well suited.
✅ kosuodhmwa closed an issue: "Where is the bitcoin.conf file located?"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30190)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30190)
💬 kosuodhmwa commented on issue "Where is the bitcoin.conf file located?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30190#issuecomment-2137337354)
ok thx
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30190#issuecomment-2137337354)
ok thx
✅ maflcko closed an issue: "bitcoind immediately segfaults on ppc64 openbsd 7.4"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29517)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29517)
💬 maflcko commented on issue "bitcoind immediately segfaults on ppc64 openbsd 7.4":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29517#issuecomment-2137337409)
Closing for now due to inactivity. Please leave a comment if there are updates or more more information.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29517#issuecomment-2137337409)
Closing for now due to inactivity. Please leave a comment if there are updates or more more information.
💬 vasild commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP+NATPMP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1618837102)
_Continuing the discussion from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#issuecomment-2131092539, so that messages are grouped together, not scattered in the main PR thread._
>> The first two commits of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812 would make it possible to test and fuzz how this code interacts with a router.
> So ive been thinking about this, do we have a mockable way to do std::optional<Sock> socket(int domain, int type, int protocol)? ...
Almost. Right now we ha
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1618837102)
_Continuing the discussion from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#issuecomment-2131092539, so that messages are grouped together, not scattered in the main PR thread._
>> The first two commits of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26812 would make it possible to test and fuzz how this code interacts with a router.
> So ive been thinking about this, do we have a mockable way to do std::optional<Sock> socket(int domain, int type, int protocol)? ...
Almost. Right now we ha
...
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "Testnet4 including PoW difficulty adjustment fix":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2137375997)
> In the current implementation it's far quicker to jack up the difficulty by 1000x than it takes to drop it. I didn't do the math on the way up, the way down takes 40 weeks (4 week retarget period, each cutting difficulty in half).
>
> The testnet4 specific code could increase nActualTimespan by n minutes for each minimum difficulty block. For n = 20 that speeds up the way down to 20 weeks (4 week retarget period, each cutting difficulty by 4). For n = 60 the network (almost) recovers in 12 w
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29775#issuecomment-2137375997)
> In the current implementation it's far quicker to jack up the difficulty by 1000x than it takes to drop it. I didn't do the math on the way up, the way down takes 40 weeks (4 week retarget period, each cutting difficulty in half).
>
> The testnet4 specific code could increase nActualTimespan by n minutes for each minimum difficulty block. For n = 20 that speeds up the way down to 20 weeks (4 week retarget period, each cutting difficulty by 4). For n = 60 the network (almost) recovers in 12 w
...
💬 laanwj commented on pull request "net: Replace libnatpmp with built-in PCP+NATPMP implementation":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1618860594)
> I am not sure why. I should get a warning about __u32 <= ssize_t, right?
Comparing an unsigned type against a larger signed type does what one would expect: it gets casted to the larger signed type before comparison.
This is why on 64-bit platforms this is fine.
However on 32-bit platforms, `ssize_t` is 32 bit. So there it warns.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30043#discussion_r1618860594)
> I am not sure why. I should get a warning about __u32 <= ssize_t, right?
Comparing an unsigned type against a larger signed type does what one would expect: it gets casted to the larger signed type before comparison.
This is why on 64-bit platforms this is fine.
However on 32-bit platforms, `ssize_t` is 32 bit. So there it warns.
👍 hebasto approved a pull request: "build: remove usage of BOOST_NO_CXX98_FUNCTION_BASE"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#pullrequestreview-2085389220)
ACK fc479352f617b33d45dcbf8b2c97b144614f1145.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#pullrequestreview-2085389220)
ACK fc479352f617b33d45dcbf8b2c97b144614f1145.
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: remove usage of BOOST_NO_CXX98_FUNCTION_BASE":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137422632)
I stopped seeing the warning after commit 3b2acfcfec83a4e6e50b3f21e0810274bdb05afb
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137422632)
I stopped seeing the warning after commit 3b2acfcfec83a4e6e50b3f21e0810274bdb05afb
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: remove usage of BOOST_NO_CXX98_FUNCTION_BASE":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137449950)
It would be good to properly explain this, because this still happens, at least with at least
* `--disable-suppress-external-warnings`
* depends boost 1.73
* g++-12 and clang-18
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137449950)
It would be good to properly explain this, because this still happens, at least with at least
* `--disable-suppress-external-warnings`
* depends boost 1.73
* g++-12 and clang-18
✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "build: remove usage of BOOST_NO_CXX98_FUNCTION_BASE"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189)
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: remove usage of BOOST_NO_CXX98_FUNCTION_BASE":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137453027)
> It would be good to properly explain this,
The explanation is that it still happens, it never should have been incorrectly dropped from the CMake build (where it can now be re-added), and this can be closed.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137453027)
> It would be good to properly explain this,
The explanation is that it still happens, it never should have been incorrectly dropped from the CMake build (where it can now be re-added), and this can be closed.