💬 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.
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: remove usage of BOOST_NO_CXX98_FUNCTION_BASE":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137467259)
Does `--disable-suppress-external-warnings` only work with depends?
Should `--disable-suppress-external-warnings` be enabled in some CI tasks?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137467259)
Does `--disable-suppress-external-warnings` only work with depends?
Should `--disable-suppress-external-warnings` be enabled in some CI tasks?
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: remove usage of BOOST_NO_CXX98_FUNCTION_BASE":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137487819)
If it is clear, that this can only happen inside of depends, where it is fixed after 1.81, then I think it is fine to merge. However, I am trying to figure out if this can happen outside of depends.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137487819)
If it is clear, that this can only happen inside of depends, where it is fixed after 1.81, then I think it is fine to merge. However, I am trying to figure out if this can happen outside of depends.
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "Several randomness improvements":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29625#issuecomment-2137496121)
```
node0 stderr random.h:218:26: runtime error: shift exponent -23 is negative
#0 0x61cb8c410ee5 in RandomMixin<FastRandomContext>::randbits(int) src/./random.h:218:26
#1 0x61cb8c460b2c in long RandomMixin<FastRandomContext>::randrange<long>(long) src/./random.h:270:35
#2 0x61cb8c460b2c in std::chrono::duration<long, std::ratio<1l, 1000l>> RandomMixin<FastRandomContext>::randrange<std::chrono::duration<long, std::ratio<1l, 1000l>>>(std::common_type<std::chrono::duration<long, s
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29625#issuecomment-2137496121)
```
node0 stderr random.h:218:26: runtime error: shift exponent -23 is negative
#0 0x61cb8c410ee5 in RandomMixin<FastRandomContext>::randbits(int) src/./random.h:218:26
#1 0x61cb8c460b2c in long RandomMixin<FastRandomContext>::randrange<long>(long) src/./random.h:270:35
#2 0x61cb8c460b2c in std::chrono::duration<long, std::ratio<1l, 1000l>> RandomMixin<FastRandomContext>::randrange<std::chrono::duration<long, std::ratio<1l, 1000l>>>(std::common_type<std::chrono::duration<long, s
...
⚠️ kosuodhmwa opened an issue: "VM disk for OS (Debian 12.x) gets smaller and smaller - NOT the same disk i used for .bitdoin data directory which is mounted on another disk"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30191)
I ask me why? Now i added the txindex=1 option to bitcoin.conf file and it's the OS disk that gets smaller and smaller - NOT the disk where .bicoin data directory is located... that's very, very confusing i.m.o
B: = bitcoin data disk where .bitcoin data directory is
I: = disk where the virtualbox bitcoind VM (Debian 12.x) is.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30191)
I ask me why? Now i added the txindex=1 option to bitcoin.conf file and it's the OS disk that gets smaller and smaller - NOT the disk where .bicoin data directory is located... that's very, very confusing i.m.o
B: = bitcoin data disk where .bitcoin data directory is
I: = disk where the virtualbox bitcoind VM (Debian 12.x) is.
💬 kosuodhmwa commented on issue "VM disk for OS (Debian 12.x) gets smaller and smaller - NOT the same disk i used for .bitdoin data directory which is mounted on another disk":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30191#issuecomment-2137526218)
maybe it saves tons of logs in /var/ log ??
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30191#issuecomment-2137526218)
maybe it saves tons of logs in /var/ log ??
💬 maflcko commented on issue "VM disk for OS (Debian 12.x) gets smaller and smaller - NOT the same disk i used for .bitdoin data directory which is mounted on another disk":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30191#issuecomment-2137538541)
We can't help you by guessing what you did and what went wrong. You'll have to explain everything in detail.
Make sure to fully read https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/files.md and understand it, first.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30191#issuecomment-2137538541)
We can't help you by guessing what you did and what went wrong. You'll have to explain everything in detail.
Make sure to fully read https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/files.md and understand it, first.
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: remove usage of BOOST_NO_CXX98_FUNCTION_BASE":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137542167)
> Does --disable-suppress-external-warnings only work with depends?
It should not be depends specific.
> Should --disable-suppress-external-warnings be enabled in some CI tasks?
That depends on what we are trying to achieve, and if we are planning on patching external libraries / code and upstreaming relevant changes etc. It's also likely to lead to more CI "breakage" on distro version, or other changes, that may not be relevant for us.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137542167)
> Does --disable-suppress-external-warnings only work with depends?
It should not be depends specific.
> Should --disable-suppress-external-warnings be enabled in some CI tasks?
That depends on what we are trying to achieve, and if we are planning on patching external libraries / code and upstreaming relevant changes etc. It's also likely to lead to more CI "breakage" on distro version, or other changes, that may not be relevant for us.
💬 maflcko commented on pull request "build: remove usage of BOOST_NO_CXX98_FUNCTION_BASE":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137551455)
> That depends on what we are trying to achieve
Wouldn't it be good to know about issues, such as the one here (`BOOST_NO_CXX98_FUNCTION_BASE`) as early as possible? Not sure how to achieve that, other than setting `--disable-suppress-external-warnings` in at least some CI tasks.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137551455)
> That depends on what we are trying to achieve
Wouldn't it be good to know about issues, such as the one here (`BOOST_NO_CXX98_FUNCTION_BASE`) as early as possible? Not sure how to achieve that, other than setting `--disable-suppress-external-warnings` in at least some CI tasks.
📝 fanquake opened a pull request: "build: remove `--enable-lcov-branch-coverage`"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30192)
This supports lcov `2.x` in the sense that we are no-longer hardcoding version specific options, and instead will use the `LCOV_OPTS` variable (which is the more correct/flexible thing to do in any case). It's also quite likely that devs are already having to pass extra options to lcov `2.x`, given it's more stringent in terms of coverage generation and error checking. See this thread for an example: https://github.com/linux-test-project/lcov/issues/238.
Tested on one machine (LCOV 2.0, gcc 1
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30192)
This supports lcov `2.x` in the sense that we are no-longer hardcoding version specific options, and instead will use the `LCOV_OPTS` variable (which is the more correct/flexible thing to do in any case). It's also quite likely that devs are already having to pass extra options to lcov `2.x`, given it's more stringent in terms of coverage generation and error checking. See this thread for an example: https://github.com/linux-test-project/lcov/issues/238.
Tested on one machine (LCOV 2.0, gcc 1
...
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "Prevent file descriptor exhaustion from too many RPC calls":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27731#issuecomment-2137569667)
> > removing libevent
>
> Nice. Is there a tracking issue?
Not yet, but should be open soon (TM).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27731#issuecomment-2137569667)
> > removing libevent
>
> Nice. Is there a tracking issue?
Not yet, but should be open soon (TM).
💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: remove usage of BOOST_NO_CXX98_FUNCTION_BASE":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137582493)
> Wouldn't it be good to know about issues, <snip> as early as possible?
I think if we are going to do that, then enabling it on a rolling / nightly distro type CI, i.e fedora rawhide, would be the most useful, otherwise, I think it's unlikely to actually turn much up, given packages are pinned in depends, and in the distro. Note that `*--suppress-external-warnings` was another feature not ported to CMake, as apparently it isn't needed; so someone would have to look at porting it again, so it
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30189#issuecomment-2137582493)
> Wouldn't it be good to know about issues, <snip> as early as possible?
I think if we are going to do that, then enabling it on a rolling / nightly distro type CI, i.e fedora rawhide, would be the most useful, otherwise, I think it's unlikely to actually turn much up, given packages are pinned in depends, and in the distro. Note that `*--suppress-external-warnings` was another feature not ported to CMake, as apparently it isn't needed; so someone would have to look at porting it again, so it
...