💬 hebasto commented on issue "MSVC 17.12.0 internal compiler error ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31303#issuecomment-2481384222)
@sipsorcery
> I have never buil the fuzzer before. Is the error from the build [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/fuzzing.md#quickstart-guide)?
Just configure with `-DBUILD_FUZZ_BINARY=ON` and build the `fuzz` target.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31303#issuecomment-2481384222)
@sipsorcery
> I have never buil the fuzzer before. Is the error from the build [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/fuzzing.md#quickstart-guide)?
Just configure with `-DBUILD_FUZZ_BINARY=ON` and build the `fuzz` target.
🤔 pablomartin4btc reviewed a pull request: "build: Switch to Qt 6"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#pullrequestreview-2441120863)
tACK a16bd17d34bb7a8e704cbd7d4f741b9d2e309246
Built depends on macOS 14.4 (still got the warning regarding dupe library `secp256k1` while building `test-bitcoin` - I think that was already happening with the cmake integration).
Built depends on Ubuntu 22.04:
- Some files (`depends/source/CMakeLists.txt`, ECMOptional* and QtTopLevel*) were not found during the `make -C depends` due to they missed the suffix `-6.7.3` so I had to manually copy them in order to continue with the build (this w
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#pullrequestreview-2441120863)
tACK a16bd17d34bb7a8e704cbd7d4f741b9d2e309246
Built depends on macOS 14.4 (still got the warning regarding dupe library `secp256k1` while building `test-bitcoin` - I think that was already happening with the cmake integration).
Built depends on Ubuntu 22.04:
- Some files (`depends/source/CMakeLists.txt`, ECMOptional* and QtTopLevel*) were not found during the `make -C depends` due to they missed the suffix `-6.7.3` so I had to manually copy them in order to continue with the build (this w
...
💬 casey commented on pull request "Add `contrib/justfile` containing useful development workflow commands.":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31292#discussion_r1845558046)
`cmake` presets only work for cmake commands, however there are a bunch of commands one should know for working on core.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31292#discussion_r1845558046)
`cmake` presets only work for cmake commands, however there are a bunch of commands one should know for working on core.
💬 luke-jr commented on pull request "RPC/Wallet: Convert walletprocesspsbt to use options parameter":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24963#issuecomment-2481546911)
Assuming the remaining CI failure is #31307
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24963#issuecomment-2481546911)
Assuming the remaining CI failure is #31307
📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "ci, iwyu: Treat warnings as errors for specific targets"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31308)
This PR is the first step towards treating IWYU warnings as errors. It utilises CMake's native support via the [`CMAKE_CXX_INCLUDE_WHAT_YOU_USE`](https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/variable/CMAKE_LANG_INCLUDE_WHAT_YOU_USE.html)) variable. While this approach introduces some duplication at present, it will ultimately enable us to consolidate how the IWYU tool is executed, allowing for a choice between using the `iwyu_tool.py` script or CMake's built-in functionality.
At this stage, only the h
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31308)
This PR is the first step towards treating IWYU warnings as errors. It utilises CMake's native support via the [`CMAKE_CXX_INCLUDE_WHAT_YOU_USE`](https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/variable/CMAKE_LANG_INCLUDE_WHAT_YOU_USE.html)) variable. While this approach introduces some duplication at present, it will ultimately enable us to consolidate how the IWYU tool is executed, allowing for a choice between using the `iwyu_tool.py` script or CMake's built-in functionality.
At this stage, only the h
...
💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "ci: Update Clang in "tidy" job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31306#discussion_r1845646642)
Given that https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31305 fixes the issue, are we disabling it as a temporary measure?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31306#discussion_r1845646642)
Given that https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31305 fixes the issue, are we disabling it as a temporary measure?
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Update Clang in "tidy" job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31306#discussion_r1845650560)
Right.
It depends on which PR is merged first :)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31306#discussion_r1845650560)
Right.
It depends on which PR is merged first :)
💬 theStack commented on pull request "wallet: Remove IsMine from migration code":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30328#discussion_r1845652266)
This call tests for P2WSH inside P2WSH and always returns `false`, hence the whole if condition is not fulfilled and the two lines below will never be executed (can be verified easily by putting an `assert(false)` in the body and running unit and wallet functional tests -- they still pass without crash). I assume this was meant to be
```suggestion
is_valid_script(witness_script, ScriptContext::P2WSH)) {
```
It's surprising though that the tests still passed. Either the tests
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30328#discussion_r1845652266)
This call tests for P2WSH inside P2WSH and always returns `false`, hence the whole if condition is not fulfilled and the two lines below will never be executed (can be verified easily by putting an `assert(false)` in the body and running unit and wallet functional tests -- they still pass without crash). I assume this was meant to be
```suggestion
is_valid_script(witness_script, ScriptContext::P2WSH)) {
```
It's surprising though that the tests still passed. Either the tests
...
💬 sipsorcery commented on issue "MSVC 17.12.0 internal compiler error ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31303#issuecomment-2481584659)
I'm not having any luck getting the fuzzer to run but I was able to replicate the compiler error and fix it by getting chatgpt to rejig the code slightly.
```
/* static const auto setup{
MakeNoLogFileContext<TestingSetup>(ChainType::REGTEST,
TestOpts{
.setup_net = false,
.setup_validation_interface = false,
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31303#issuecomment-2481584659)
I'm not having any luck getting the fuzzer to run but I was able to replicate the compiler error and fix it by getting chatgpt to rejig the code slightly.
```
/* static const auto setup{
MakeNoLogFileContext<TestingSetup>(ChainType::REGTEST,
TestOpts{
.setup_net = false,
.setup_validation_interface = false,
...
💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "depends: Update minimum required CMake version":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31300#issuecomment-2481613447)
The selected versions in the patches seem random, why not pick the same value for all of them? Is there also precedent for us making patches just to silence warnings?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31300#issuecomment-2481613447)
The selected versions in the patches seem random, why not pick the same value for all of them? Is there also precedent for us making patches just to silence warnings?
💬 hebasto commented on pull request "depends: Update minimum required CMake version":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31300#issuecomment-2481616301)
> Is there also precedent for us making patches just to silence warnings?
`depends/patches/qrencode/cmake_fixups.patch`?
This PR is not about silencing warnings but ensuring that deprecated CMake versions are not used.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31300#issuecomment-2481616301)
> Is there also precedent for us making patches just to silence warnings?
`depends/patches/qrencode/cmake_fixups.patch`?
This PR is not about silencing warnings but ensuring that deprecated CMake versions are not used.
💬 furszy commented on issue "importdescriptors always rescans":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31263#issuecomment-2481647298)
> Something else that's useful to note is that even a short rescan, on a weak or otherwise loaded machine, can cause RPC calls to start timing out.
Just a recommendation.
Can make the rescan lighter and faster by enabling `-blockfilterindex`. It will avoid reading and traversing blocks with no matching elements.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31263#issuecomment-2481647298)
> Something else that's useful to note is that even a short rescan, on a weak or otherwise loaded machine, can cause RPC calls to start timing out.
Just a recommendation.
Can make the rescan lighter and faster by enabling `-blockfilterindex`. It will avoid reading and traversing blocks with no matching elements.
💬 gmart7t2 commented on issue "importdescriptors always rescans":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31263#issuecomment-2481760335)
I have that, and it does make it faster. But I still get RPC timeouts when the machine is loaded, particularly if the wallet already has a lot of descriptors in it. It doesn't only rescan for the one(s) I am adding, but also for all the pre-existing descriptors in the wallet.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31263#issuecomment-2481760335)
I have that, and it does make it faster. But I still get RPC timeouts when the machine is loaded, particularly if the wallet already has a lot of descriptors in it. It doesn't only rescan for the one(s) I am adding, but also for all the pre-existing descriptors in the wallet.
⚠️ achow101 reopened an issue: "importdescriptors always rescans"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31263)
### Is there an existing issue for this?
- [X] I have searched the existing issues
### Current behaviour
Running `importdescriptors` with `timestamp: now` rescans the last 2 hours worth of blocks.
The docs say that '"now" can be specified to bypass scanning' but that doesn't appear to be true:
```
"timestamp": timestamp | "now", (integer / string, required) Time from which to start rescanning the blockchain for this descriptor, in UNIX epoch time
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31263)
### Is there an existing issue for this?
- [X] I have searched the existing issues
### Current behaviour
Running `importdescriptors` with `timestamp: now` rescans the last 2 hours worth of blocks.
The docs say that '"now" can be specified to bypass scanning' but that doesn't appear to be true:
```
"timestamp": timestamp | "now", (integer / string, required) Time from which to start rescanning the blockchain for this descriptor, in UNIX epoch time
...
💬 furszy commented on issue "importdescriptors always rescans":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31263#issuecomment-2481775432)
> I have that, and it does make it faster. But I still get RPC timeouts when the machine is loaded, particularly if the wallet already has a lot of descriptors in it. It doesn't only rescan for the one(s) I am adding, but also for all the pre-existing descriptors in the wallet.
Yes. Thats something I already have in my TO DO list. It requires a rescanning restructuring first.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31263#issuecomment-2481775432)
> I have that, and it does make it faster. But I still get RPC timeouts when the machine is loaded, particularly if the wallet already has a lot of descriptors in it. It doesn't only rescan for the one(s) I am adding, but also for all the pre-existing descriptors in the wallet.
Yes. Thats something I already have in my TO DO list. It requires a rescanning restructuring first.
💬 PastaPastaPasta commented on pull request "refactor: covert ContainsNoNUL to ContainsNUL":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31301#discussion_r1845839618)
Applied in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31301/commits/6077262788333759f1ddc27539e86cd04ac8d076
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31301#discussion_r1845839618)
Applied in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31301/commits/6077262788333759f1ddc27539e86cd04ac8d076
💬 PastaPastaPasta commented on pull request "refactor: covert ContainsNoNUL to ContainsNUL":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31301#discussion_r1845844350)
I think I disagree here. If the function **had** side effects, it may make sense to not have [[nodiscard]] as you may intend to call the function, without caring what it returns. In this instance though, there is no purpose to call ContainsNUL and not use the returning value, so that would be indicative of a bug.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31301#discussion_r1845844350)
I think I disagree here. If the function **had** side effects, it may make sense to not have [[nodiscard]] as you may intend to call the function, without caring what it returns. In this instance though, there is no purpose to call ContainsNUL and not use the returning value, so that would be indicative of a bug.
⚠️ Mhsn34866 opened an issue: "سلام من ابتدای ۳۴۸۶۶ را با شوکت فرزند موسی ویدا فرزند علی پگاه فرزند جلال در صنعت دریای حفاری و کشتیرانی ودر زمینه محاسبات حورا فرزند علی پرویز اسم باباشو یادم نیست و دبیر ریاضیم اقای امروانی که فامیلیشو عوض کرد و خرید یک جایگاه دیگه ۳۴۸۶۶ از پول اولین بالانس ۶ تا تقصیم سلولی برای خودم هستم . "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31309)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31309)
💬 Mhsn34866 commented on issue "سلام من ابتدای ۳۴۸۶۶ را با شوکت فرزند موسی ویدا فرزند علی پگاه فرزند جلال در صنعت دریای حفاری و کشتیرانی ودر زمینه محاسبات حورا فرزند علی پرویز اسم باباشو یادم نیست و دبیر ریاضیم اقای امروانی که فامیلیشو عوض کرد و خرید یک جایگاه دیگه ۳۴۸۶۶ از پول اولین بالانس ۶ تا تقصیم سلولی برای خودم هستم . ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31309#issuecomment-2481903736)
پیگیری و تجزیه و تحلیل پایه ثابط د. محاسبات برای رو نمای از بوجیه پنهان تامین کنندیه بازار طبق احراز هویت صحیح و نجات اقتصاد کریه زمین دلیل مراجعه من به سیستم میباشد
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31309#issuecomment-2481903736)
پیگیری و تجزیه و تحلیل پایه ثابط د. محاسبات برای رو نمای از بوجیه پنهان تامین کنندیه بازار طبق احراز هویت صحیح و نجات اقتصاد کریه زمین دلیل مراجعه من به سیستم میباشد
⚠️ Mhsn34866 opened an issue: "پیگیری و حراست و محافظت هوش مصنوعی در قبال جوهر هوشمند دیجیتال یا ولم و کلید بازار "
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31310)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31310)