💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "node: reduce unsafe uint256S usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30569#discussion_r1726864665)
Taken both suggestions in latest force-push, thanks.

💬 marcofleon commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1726881676)
`i2p.cpp` is missing here

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1726889959)
Thanks!

I don't consider this a blocker, so it will be fixed in a follow-up.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#issuecomment-2304454120)
My Guix build:
```
x86_64
c4e0333106b259d1ab11066677fc32fba8dd380afc2f9c334d9eff2dccccba39 guix-build-41051290ab3b/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
bfce0ebd120bd45576586691c46b47e66bb0031f7540772a924d4cb1c2602576 guix-build-41051290ab3b/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-41051290ab3b-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
615aae82e503fc07ee1053649b3a45ad2f0dd9c02d5a85394f8ba33b3bd5be88 guix-build-41051290ab3b/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-41051290ab3b-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
2a8ef06d7
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "Have miner account for timewarp mitigation, activate on regtest, lower nPowTargetTimespan to 144 and add test":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30681#discussion_r1726894640)
Thanks, will fix if I need to retouch.

💬 vasild commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1726899916)
Is there a list of known things to be addressed in a followup? It would help us not to forget things and also should avoid people reporting duplicates.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "node: reduce unsafe uint256S usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30569#issuecomment-2304465368)
I like it a lot more now, thanks for considering the feedbacks.

The only part that still bugs me a bit is the naming of `FromUserHex` -> the "user" is on a different abstraction level, I'd prefer mentioning the behavior change compared to the sibling method (i.e. it's more forgiving/leninent for the inputs), rather than the motivation for adding the method (the users sometimes prefer different formats).

ACK 81554aac80bf2270db977c110c37acc7e8034194

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "node: reduce unsafe uint256S usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30569#discussion_r1726880388)
nit, if you touch again, consider:
```suggestion
std::cerr << RANDOM_CTX_SEED << " must consist of up to " << uint256::size() * 2 << " hex digits (\"0x\" prefix allowed), it was set to: '" << num << "'.\n";
```

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1726907251)
we're adding some follow-ups as PRs to https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pulls

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#issuecomment-2304492506)
Getting the same guix hashes as @hebasto and x86_64.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1726922698)
> we're adding some follow-ups as PRs to https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pulls

Right. This, and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues?q=label%3A%22Needs+CMake+port%22+is%3Aclosed.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "Fix maybe-uninitialized warning in IsSpentKey":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30691#issuecomment-2304495811)
utACK 17707db939cb09a16c002d226152e71fce9289f2

👍 BrandonOdiwuor approved a pull request: "Fix maybe-uninitialized warning in IsSpentKey"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30691#pullrequestreview-2254358116)
Code Review ACK 17707db939cb09a16c002d226152e71fce9289f2

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Mark `x86_64-linux-gnu` release binaries as CET-enabled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30685#discussion_r1726964446)
```
< snip >
x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: /tmp/ccDAU1BA.o: error: missing IBT and SHSTK properties
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
E
======================================================================
ERROR: test_ELF (__main__.TestSecurityChecks)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/distsrc-base/distsrc-059bcf847da0-x86_64-linux-gnu/./contrib/devtools/test-security-check.py", line 67, in test_ELF
se
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Mark `x86_64-linux-gnu` release binaries as CET-enabled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30685#discussion_r1726977836)
```
x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: /tmp/ccwqGS4u.o: error: missing IBT and SHSTK properties
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
E
======================================================================
ERROR: test_ELF (__main__.TestSecurityChecks)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/distsrc-base/distsrc-5fda052191b0-x86_64-linux-gnu/./contrib/devtools/test-security-check.py", line 67, in test_ELF
self.assertE
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Mark `x86_64-linux-gnu` release binaries as CET-enabled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30685#discussion_r1726985551)
GIven that the whole point of these scripts is to sanity check the (release) tests, using the release flags, and in the Guix env; I don't think an undocumented workaround, of just hiding certain release flags, from the test scripts, is the right thing to do.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Mark `x86_64-linux-gnu` release binaries as CET-enabled":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30685#discussion_r1726997573)
OK. What can you suggest?

💬 ryanofsky commented on pull request "wallet: Write best block to disk before backup":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30678#discussion_r1727012811)
re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30678#discussion_r1725697479

I think that's right, but I don't see these sqlite or bdb implementation details being relevant here. My point is that before unloading a wallet, and before backing up a wallet, it would seem like a good idea to flush wallet state that's in memory to disk, so information is not lost. So it would seem logical to do that in the Flush method and to call Flush before backing up the wallet.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1727016049)
Comparing the output of `PRINT_ALL_FUZZ_TARGETS_AND_ABORT=1 src/test/fuzz/fuzz` for both autotools and cmake can be used to verify that all harnesses are ported.

💬 dergoegge commented on pull request "refactor: TxDownloadManager + fuzzing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30110#issuecomment-2304631078)
Doesn't look like `ReceivedTx` ever returns a package to validate in any of the fuzz tests (500 CPU hours each):

* http://bitcoind-fuzz.dergoegge.de:8000/bitcoin-pr30110/harnesses/txdownload_impl/coverage_report/coverage/workdir/bitcoin/src/test/fuzz/txdownloadman.cpp.html#L352
* http://bitcoind-fuzz.dergoegge.de:8000/bitcoin-pr30110/harnesses/txdownloadman/coverage_report/coverage/workdir/bitcoin/src/test/fuzz/txdownloadman.cpp.html#L213
* http://bitcoind-fuzz.dergoegge.de:8000/bitcoin-pr3
...