💬 sipa commented on issue "build: x86 ASan build broken "error: inline assembly requires more registers than available"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31913#issuecomment-2671765973)
Does `-O0` even work with `-DUSE_ASM_X86_64=1`, absent asan?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "cmake: Set top-level target output locations":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31161#discussion_r1963742659)
> it has not yet been decided whether their own build scripts will be used.

The current decision is to not use them (i.e https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30905). As far as I'm aware, no one is working on the changes that would be required for us to start using them, so I'm not sure why we'd start using them.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "i deleted a commented line in invalid_signer.py file"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31914)

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "i deleted a commented line in invalid_signer.py file"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31914)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

💬 dergoegge commented on issue "build: x86 ASan build broken "error: inline assembly requires more registers than available"":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31913#issuecomment-2671770232)
> Does -O0 even work with -DUSE_ASM_X86_64=1, absent asan?

Looks like it.

> You can also set -O1 instead of -O0, but I guess you don't want that?

Just re-read your message, isn't `-O2` our default? i.e. I don't think I was using `-O0` when I first saw this.

💬 rkrux commented on pull request "qa: clarify and document assumeutxo tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31907#discussion_r1963746974)
This is an expected error from the underlying RPC call. Although using `coin` here in the assertion won't fail the functional test but I don't think this makes any meaningful difference.

📝 stephenmiracle4 opened a pull request: "i deleted a commented line in invalid_signer.py file"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31915)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "i deleted a commented line in invalid_signer.py file"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31915)

📝 fanquake locked a pull request: "."
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31915)
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***

Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.

GUI-related pull requests should be opened against
https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui
first. See CONTRIBUTING.md
-->

<!--
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it improves
Bitcoin Core user experience or Bitcoin Core developer experience
significantly:

* Any test improvements or new tests that improv
...

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "ci: switch MSAN to use prebuilt Clang binaries"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31850)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: switch MSAN to use prebuilt Clang binaries":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31850#issuecomment-2671801172)
Yea, I don't think so. We can circle back around to this soon.

💬 l0rinc commented on pull request "test: cover base[32|58|64] with symmetric roundtrip fuzz (and padding) tests":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30746#discussion_r1963776373)
> issues.oss-fuzz.com/issues/397734700](https://issues.oss-fuzz.com/issues/397734700:

`Access is denied to this issue`

> Looking into this. Was there any reason to change max_ret_len from 100 to 1000?

The scenarios when `maxlength` doesn't restrict `random_string` seems like the more useful case. Given that the actual value was capped at `1000` already, I have aligned it to that.
Also, @brunoerg extended 100 to 300 in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31577/files#diff-c4025879a0b
...

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "rpc: add address_type field in getaddressinfo"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30727)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "rpc: add address_type field in getaddressinfo":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30727#issuecomment-2671823879)
Closing for now, due to no/lack of followup. Please leave a comment, if you want this reopened.

💬 darosior commented on pull request "qa: fix an off-by-one in utxo snapshot fuzz target and sanity check its snapshot data":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31910#discussion_r1963788069)
Nevertheless this is not obvious and Niklas' suggestion of having it in the initialization of the fuzz target makes sense so i just did that too.

✅ fanquake closed a pull request: "test: cover edge case for lockunspent rpc"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31209)

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "test: cover edge case for lockunspent rpc":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31209#issuecomment-2671825254)
Closing for now. Doesn't seem to be agreement on the change.

🤔 vasild reviewed a pull request: "multiprocess: Add bitcoin wrapper executable"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31375#pullrequestreview-2629536362)
Approach ACK 185c6a416df679ddc7b38750aa4d181c0b043d5b

💬 vasild commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add bitcoin wrapper executable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31375#discussion_r1963378155)
```suggestion
//! Return path to argv0.
fs::path GetExePath(std::string_view argv0);
```

💬 vasild commented on pull request "multiprocess: Add bitcoin wrapper executable":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31375#discussion_r1963540791)
Some leftovers, I guess from previous incarnation of this which did not use `R"(...)"`:

```suggestion
-m, --multiprocess Run multiprocess binaries bitcoin-node, bitcoin-gui.
-M, --monolithic Run monolithic binaries bitcoind, bitcoin-qt. (Default behavior)
```