💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "validation: fetch block inputs on parallel threads ~17% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132#discussion_r1850828070)
I'm not sure that's the best though, since we do not mark a coin as not dirty. That is the default state.

What about
"marking the coin as dirty unless `set_dirty` is set to false"?

💬 mzumsande commented on pull request "rpc: Remove submitblock pre-checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31175#discussion_r1850831460)
> err on the conservative side and not introduce potentially breaking behaviour

Generally speaking, I don't see reason why we should artificially restrict a user from submitting a previously block via RPC, when they could request that block via `getblockfrompeer`, and I can't of use cases it would break.

Maybe one way to move forward would be to not remove the duplicate check in this PR (but document why it exists) - and instead remove it in a follow-up PR, together with a release note ab
...

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "rpc: Remove submitblock pre-checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31175#discussion_r1850834724)
The only danger I can foresee is if someone was somehow relying on them not being able to be committed to disk again. Would there be any performance concerns with commiting+re-pruning or similar?

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "validation: fetch block inputs on parallel threads ~17% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132#discussion_r1850853460)
That sounds good to me :+1:

💬 TheCharlatan commented on pull request "guix: swap `moreutils` for just `sponge`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31323#issuecomment-2489571213)
Checked the patch against the original moreutils package, and reproduced the stripped-down package. I think grabbing the specific tools we need from these kind of packages is a good thing.

Guix builds (aarch64):
```
74a02707614d7fc7ed460148b37e90c126d09c2e9b2962765de14d267a3f22d3 guix-build-c4ee9b8aa078/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
263f079da730485eb583995c1fc6304b7ca957a668fd5aac8f879bc59746dc67 guix-build-c4ee9b8aa078/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-c4ee9b8aa078-aarch64-lin
...

💬 1440000bytes commented on pull request "rpc: combinerawtransaction now rejects unmergeable transactions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31298#issuecomment-2489581872)
Can this use the same approach and error message as `combinepsbt`?

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "scripted-diff: Type-safe settings retrieval":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31260#discussion_r1850502858)
In f9910935c880c782c2b1d35acd38e1e18e6b4ad8:
What is `StringLiteral(std::nullptr_t) ->`? I take it some kind of template specialization but haven't come across regular braces and arrows being used in this way before.

🤔 hodlinator reviewed a pull request: "scripted-diff: Type-safe settings retrieval"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31260#pullrequestreview-2448864512)
High-level review of c42d27d8c844b721b5aff384b3d014b1e0cc4783

Review instructions are a nice introduction. Feels a bit risky having links to personal branch instead of specific commit, but it's good to keep it flexible until ACKs come in.

---


### Negation?

I'm curious how you foresee negation checks being done. Having worked on proper handling of negated args recently, to me it feels like user code should have to jump through a hoop on the way to the non-negated value, if an arg su
...

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "scripted-diff: Type-safe settings retrieval":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31260#discussion_r1850595520)
Is `isFalse()` equivalent to the former `IsArgNegated()` use?

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "scripted-diff: Type-safe settings retrieval":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31260#discussion_r1850981914)
In f9910935c880c782c2b1d35acd38e1e18e6b4ad8:
Better to document type? This style of using `auto` as function-arg-type when not necessary feels like the opposite of C++ concepts, potentially leading to downstream compile errors. But interested to hear reasoning behind it.
```suggestion
static void Register(ArgsManager& manager, auto&&... register_options)
{
internal::SettingRegister<T, options, help>(manager, summary, category, help_fn, default_fn, get_fn, register_options...
...

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "scripted-diff: Type-safe settings retrieval":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31260#discussion_r1850670602)
```suggestion
# Trigger an error if any module listed as being nontransitive is ever included
```

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "scripted-diff: Type-safe settings retrieval":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31260#discussion_r1850653892)
In b51a156f388926175afdbc50c2d563db404e3b81:
I've learned to accept `static constexpr` (+`inline`...) in headers, but these other non-`constexpr` statics seem like they end up being "file-local" static vars in *every compilation unit* that includes them. Seems off?

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "scripted-diff: Type-safe settings retrieval":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31260#discussion_r1850701093)
Maybe add value-less negation?
```C++
BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL(SettingTest<std::optional<int>>{}.AddArg("-nos").Parse().Get(), 0);
```

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "scripted-diff: Type-safe settings retrieval":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31260#discussion_r1850692509)
How come we keep the default value in one of the cases here but not the other, both are using `.GetBoolArg` in the original?

Seems to compile fine when switching `DnsseedSetting` from using `::HelpArgs<DEFAULT_DNSSEED>` to `::Default<DEFAULT_DNSSEED>` like the `ForcednsseedSetting`.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "scripted-diff: Type-safe settings retrieval":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31260#discussion_r1850996627)
```suggestion
T SettingGet(const ArgsManager& manager, std::string_view summary, auto default_fn, auto get_fn)
```

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "scripted-diff: Type-safe settings retrieval":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31260#discussion_r1850906340)
In f33c0b1969ee4c1c36475c876f46d9085feee134:
WIP?

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "build: Use `-ffile-prefix-map` in release builds only"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31337)
This PR follows up on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30811, which inadvertently [broke](https://issues.oss-fuzz.com/issues/379122777) OSS-Fuzz coverage builds due to the `-ffile-prefix-map` option also implying `-fprofile-prefix-map`.

With this PR, only the `-fdebug-prefix-map` and `-fmacro-prefix-map` options are applied only for non-release builds.

**Note for reviewers:** Please ensure that https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30799 is not reintroduced.

💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "util: Improve documentation and negation of args":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31212#discussion_r1851027198)
> Or is the `ArgsManager::DISALLOW_NEGATION` meant to discourage people from requesting that :D?

Indeed, although I agree with `-nocolor` potentially equaling `-color=never`, it is flagged as forbidden and therefore the process is stopped before reaching the quoted code. I'm a bit hesitant to overrule the prior intent of disallowing it.

💬 andrewtoth commented on pull request "validation: fetch block inputs on parallel threads ~17% faster IBD":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31132#discussion_r1851032146)
Done.

🤔 TheCharlatan reviewed a pull request: "kernel: make m_tip_block std::optional"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31325#pullrequestreview-2449774883)
lgtm, but I don't think this should be prefixed with kernel: in both the title and the commit message. The point of having the notification interface is that the node code can extend kernel behaviour. The implementation details of that are not part of the kernel.