💬 fanquake commented on issue "Discover() will not run if listening on any address with an explicit bind=0.0.0.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31293#issuecomment-2497815300)
> At some point the test framework was changed to add some -binds:

That was done in #22729.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "refactor: Fix remaining clang-tidy performance-unnecessary-copy-initialization errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31364#issuecomment-2497820760)
Concept ACK.

I'd prefer if this PR was based on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31306 to ensure that CI checks that all cases are addressed.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "[POC] ci: Test cross-built Windows executables on Windows natively":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31176#discussion_r1856504656)
FWIW, we do not use the installed packages cache in the "test-each-commit" job.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "ci: Update Clang in "tidy" job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31306#discussion_r1856545513)
Thank you!

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "macOS: swap docs & CI from pkg-config to pkgconf":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31335#issuecomment-2497915410)
From the [macOS 14 arm64 (20241125) Image Update](https://github.com/actions/runner-images/releases/tag/macos-14-arm64%2F20241125.556):
> Added: `pkgconf` 2.3.0
> Deleted: `pkg-config` 0.29.2

💬 Maxzy000 commented on issue "Tracepoint Interface Tracking Issue":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31274#issuecomment-2497919023)
Oh can see can you text me in my telegram account

👍 l0rinc approved a pull request: "ci: Update Clang in "tidy" job"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31306#pullrequestreview-2458343388)
ACK 3e039b7a03bea6e11e994aebe038ebd6ca80aeb8

The latest change:
* Reverted the `CI_IMAGE_NAME_TAG` and added `APT_LLVM_V`.
* Reverted the `CheckAddCoin` and `ExpectSuccess` fixes to avoid collisions with other PRs.

💬 laanwj commented on issue "guix: Linux and macOS builds are not cross-arch reproducible with powerpc64le build arch":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31207#issuecomment-2497932788)
i've compared against the binaries from bitcoincore.org and looked at the ELF metadata and disassembly and it's a significant difference, not just a few different instructions. The entire `.text` section ends up with a different size, which shifts the offsets, making it very hard to determine what the source of the discrepancy is.

Debug symbols could help but ideally i'd need a linker map.

Can you please build the following branch: https://github.com/laanwj/bitcoin/tree/2024-11-linker-map-
...

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Test cross-built Windows executables on Windows natively":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31176#discussion_r1856563510)
Correct, but it isn't using the Ubuntu mirror. It is using the GHA mirror. Using a GHA cache to sidestep the GHA mirror seems a no-op, no?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: Fix remaining clang-tidy performance-unnecessary-copy-initialization errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31364#issuecomment-2497942820)
Rebased on top of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31306 and updated commit message

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Update Clang in "tidy" job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31306#discussion_r1856568054)
Seems easier to just fix it right away, instead of touching the line to say to fix it and then fix it in the next commit?

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "refactor: Fix remaining clang-tidy performance-inefficient-vector errors":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31305#issuecomment-2497947459)
Rebased on top of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31306 and updated commit messages

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Skip broken Wine64 tests by default":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31284#issuecomment-2497949320)
> The false positives keep coming in, so it would be good to make progress here:

https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5175499276681216

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "ci: Update Clang in "tidy" job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31306#discussion_r1856576778)
I'm fine either way, but I guess this way it was easier to selectively revert a conflicting fix and leave only the suppression.

But I'd like to understand the reason for the supressions: would the lint problem break CI without them? Since this will still invalidate ACKed PRs if we merge it like this.

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "Segmentation fault when ./bitcoind"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31321)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Segmentation fault when ./bitcoind":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31321#issuecomment-2497970472)
Closing for now, due to lack of details/follow-up

✅ maflcko closed an issue: "Maximum dbcache too small"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31326)

💬 maflcko commented on issue "Maximum dbcache too small":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31326#issuecomment-2497978288)
> Seems like the issue is also here: #27599

Closing for now as duplicate. Leave a comment, if this is not a duplicate, or if you have any other questions.

If you have more relevant details to add to #27599, please do so.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci: Update Clang in "tidy" job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31306#discussion_r1856612322)
> Seems easier to just fix it right away, instead of touching the line to say to fix it and then fix it in the next commit?

The commits have been squashed.

> But I'd like to understand the reason for the supressions: would the lint problem break CI without them?

Yes, it would.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "ci: Update Clang in "tidy" job":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31306#issuecomment-2498022212)
ACK f90fddfabd646c3f1d21de7bb004707a072e753e