💬 ismaelsadeeq commented on issue "Migrate from BTC/kvB to sat/vB on RPC and startup options":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32093#issuecomment-2755122216)
Resurfacing previous discussion with @sipa and @murchandamus where we discuss the possibility of making `CFeerate` a wrapper of `FeeFrac` see attempt here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30535#pullrequestreview-2227244550, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30289#issuecomment-2637909965 alao soon `Feefrac` will have vsize and weight tags see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363/commits/6eab3b2d7380b8ff818e3a1cefeb7731b7342e04
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32093#issuecomment-2755122216)
Resurfacing previous discussion with @sipa and @murchandamus where we discuss the possibility of making `CFeerate` a wrapper of `FeeFrac` see attempt here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30535#pullrequestreview-2227244550, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30289#issuecomment-2637909965 alao soon `Feefrac` will have vsize and weight tags see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363/commits/6eab3b2d7380b8ff818e3a1cefeb7731b7342e04
💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "doc: clarify the documentation of `Assume` assertion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32100#issuecomment-2755141724)
> You cannot find any reference about it, because Assume() is a macro defined in the Bitcoin Core codebase, not a C++ language/library feature. It's defined [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v28.0/src/util/check.h#L89). It is different from, and unrelated to, the [[assume(...)]] attribute added in C++23 which you link to.
I see, thanks for the explanation. Others reading this may also think this is talking about the C++ assume (maybe).
> And you can't find confirmation that i
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32100#issuecomment-2755141724)
> You cannot find any reference about it, because Assume() is a macro defined in the Bitcoin Core codebase, not a C++ language/library feature. It's defined [here](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v28.0/src/util/check.h#L89). It is different from, and unrelated to, the [[assume(...)]] attribute added in C++23 which you link to.
I see, thanks for the explanation. Others reading this may also think this is talking about the C++ assume (maybe).
> And you can't find confirmation that i
...
💬 sipa commented on pull request "doc: clarify the documentation of `Assume` assertion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32100#issuecomment-2755146885)
> if it said that the compiler will optimize this out if it can prove there is no side-effect
There is no guarantee that the compiler will do that.
> drop the reference to production
In debug builds, it cannot be optimized out, because the statement necessarily has a side-effect (aborting if it detects the condition is false).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32100#issuecomment-2755146885)
> if it said that the compiler will optimize this out if it can prove there is no side-effect
There is no guarantee that the compiler will do that.
> drop the reference to production
In debug builds, it cannot be optimized out, because the statement necessarily has a side-effect (aborting if it detects the condition is false).
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "fuzz: enable running fuzz test cases in Debug mode":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32113#issuecomment-2755161801)
> > * It lets you include the fuzz test corpora (assuming they all pass) in a regular code coverage build, something like:
>
> Maybe I am missing something, but I guess you meant "debug mode coverage build" instead of "regular code coverage build", because the regular coverage build has neither fuzz, nor debug enabled. For me it looks something like:
Sure; I meant "regular" just in "it builds all the binaries and you can run non-fuzz tests".
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32113#issuecomment-2755161801)
> > * It lets you include the fuzz test corpora (assuming they all pass) in a regular code coverage build, something like:
>
> Maybe I am missing something, but I guess you meant "debug mode coverage build" instead of "regular code coverage build", because the regular coverage build has neither fuzz, nor debug enabled. For me it looks something like:
Sure; I meant "regular" just in "it builds all the binaries and you can run non-fuzz tests".
👍 brunoerg approved a pull request: "fuzz: extract unsequenced operations with side-effects"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32141#pullrequestreview-2718050537)
code review ACK b1de59e8965354fff5a149bc0fe61ed0704aea7a
worth mentioning on docs it?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32141#pullrequestreview-2718050537)
code review ACK b1de59e8965354fff5a149bc0fe61ed0704aea7a
worth mentioning on docs it?
💬 mzumsande commented on issue "qa: `p2p_ibd_stalling.py --v1transport` fails":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32090#issuecomment-2755167283)
```
2025-03-18T04:11:27.6410272Z node0 2025-03-18T04:03:24.307185Z (mocktime: 2025-03-18T04:03:24Z) [msghand] [net_processing.cpp:3379] [ProcessMessage] [net] received: headers (82947 bytes) peer=1
(...)
2025-03-18T04:11:27.8241273Z node0 2025-03-18T04:03:24.387659Z (mocktime: 2025-03-18T04:03:24Z) [msghand] [net_processing.cpp:3379] [ProcessMessage] [net] received: headers (82947 bytes) peer=0
```
Reason is that the headers messages are received in a different order than they are sent, and
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32090#issuecomment-2755167283)
```
2025-03-18T04:11:27.6410272Z node0 2025-03-18T04:03:24.307185Z (mocktime: 2025-03-18T04:03:24Z) [msghand] [net_processing.cpp:3379] [ProcessMessage] [net] received: headers (82947 bytes) peer=1
(...)
2025-03-18T04:11:27.8241273Z node0 2025-03-18T04:03:24.387659Z (mocktime: 2025-03-18T04:03:24Z) [msghand] [net_processing.cpp:3379] [ProcessMessage] [net] received: headers (82947 bytes) peer=0
```
Reason is that the headers messages are received in a different order than they are sent, and
...
💬 0xB10C commented on pull request "Accept unordered tracepoints in interface_usdt_utxocache.py":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32101#issuecomment-2755174173)
re-ACK 248fdd88dcf651a0560a3eedfb8af61f38c61400
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32101#issuecomment-2755174173)
re-ACK 248fdd88dcf651a0560a3eedfb8af61f38c61400
📝 mzumsande opened a pull request: "test: fix intermittent timeout in p2p_ibd_stalling.py"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32148)
After sending the headers message add a sync, so that we wait until the header message from the previous peer has been received before connecting additional peers.
In the failed NetBSD run linked in #32090, the second node managed to complete the handshake and send its own headers message before the message from the first node was received.
Fixes #32090
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32148)
After sending the headers message add a sync, so that we wait until the header message from the previous peer has been received before connecting additional peers.
In the failed NetBSD run linked in #32090, the second node managed to complete the handshake and send its own headers message before the message from the first node was received.
Fixes #32090
💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "cluster mempool: introduce TxGraph":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#issuecomment-2755394984)
reACK b2ea3656481b4196acaf6a1b5f3949a9ba4cf48f
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31363#issuecomment-2755394984)
reACK b2ea3656481b4196acaf6a1b5f3949a9ba4cf48f
💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "doc: clarify the documentation of `Assume` assertion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32100#discussion_r2014798109)
> If the expression inside Assume has a side-effect, but still can be proven to evaluate to true, the side effect will still remain.
I am assuming you are talking about the Macro then and not the C++ 23 [Assume](http://fiona.dmcs.p.lodz.pl/oopc/reference/en/cpp/language/attributes/assume.html) since that's not how the docs read. The docs read that if it's true it has no effect: "If the expression would not evaluate to true at the place the assumption occurs, the behavior is undefined. Otherw
...
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32100#discussion_r2014798109)
> If the expression inside Assume has a side-effect, but still can be proven to evaluate to true, the side effect will still remain.
I am assuming you are talking about the Macro then and not the C++ 23 [Assume](http://fiona.dmcs.p.lodz.pl/oopc/reference/en/cpp/language/attributes/assume.html) since that's not how the docs read. The docs read that if it's true it has no effect: "If the expression would not evaluate to true at the place the assumption occurs, the behavior is undefined. Otherw
...
💬 sipa commented on pull request "doc: clarify the documentation of `Assume` assertion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32100#discussion_r2014808890)
Yes, nothing in this PR is about the C++23 `[[assume()]]` attribute. I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32100#discussion_r2014808890)
Yes, nothing in this PR is about the C++23 `[[assume()]]` attribute. I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.
💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "doc: clarify the documentation of `Assume` assertion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32100#discussion_r2014811307)
I just noticed that Sipa said "There is no guarantee that the compiler will do that." which I guess is why the _may_ exists here.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32100#discussion_r2014811307)
I just noticed that Sipa said "There is no guarantee that the compiler will do that." which I guess is why the _may_ exists here.
💬 yancyribbens commented on pull request "doc: clarify the documentation of `Assume` assertion":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32100#discussion_r2014825890)
> Yes, nothing in this PR is about the C++23 [[assume()]] attribute. I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.
The name collision had me confused
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32100#discussion_r2014825890)
> Yes, nothing in this PR is about the C++23 [[assume()]] attribute. I don't understand why you keep bringing it up.
The name collision had me confused
💬 darosior commented on issue "Enable PCP by default?":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31663#issuecomment-2755523522)
Thanks everyone for the testing so far. @santochibtc don't you have any mention of `-natpmp` in your logs after the PCP failure? It's surprising that it wouldn't fallback.
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31663#issuecomment-2755523522)
Thanks everyone for the testing so far. @santochibtc don't you have any mention of `-natpmp` in your logs after the PCP failure? It's surprising that it wouldn't fallback.
💬 strmfos commented on pull request "lint: Remove needless borrow to fix Clippy warning":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32144#issuecomment-2755622815)
done , thank you
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32144#issuecomment-2755622815)
done , thank you
💬 darosior commented on issue "Feature Request: testmempoolaccept with an argument to ignore nLocktime/nSequence time-locking":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32142#issuecomment-2755623574)
Have you seen the discussion about this at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25434?
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32142#issuecomment-2755623574)
Have you seen the discussion about this at https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/25434?
💬 jurraca commented on pull request "contrib: document asmap-tool commands more thoroughly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32110#discussion_r2014923282)
thanks, I could have sworn i took this from existing documentation but now I can't find it, and piping in doesn't work in either case in fact. fixed in [d7a3388](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32110/commits/d7a33882f9d210ccbd03923f118f38fee95b89af).
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32110#discussion_r2014923282)
thanks, I could have sworn i took this from existing documentation but now I can't find it, and piping in doesn't work in either case in fact. fixed in [d7a3388](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32110/commits/d7a33882f9d210ccbd03923f118f38fee95b89af).
💬 jurraca commented on pull request "contrib: document asmap-tool commands more thoroughly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32110#discussion_r2014923345)
[704573e](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32110/commits/704573e016ac40e7cae00a84a9ba532a760e043e)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32110#discussion_r2014923345)
[704573e](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32110/commits/704573e016ac40e7cae00a84a9ba532a760e043e)
💬 jurraca commented on pull request "contrib: document asmap-tool commands more thoroughly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32110#discussion_r2014923385)
[704573e](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32110/commits/704573e016ac40e7cae00a84a9ba532a760e043e)
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32110#discussion_r2014923385)
[704573e](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32110/commits/704573e016ac40e7cae00a84a9ba532a760e043e)
💬 fjahr commented on pull request "contrib: document asmap-tool commands more thoroughly":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32110#issuecomment-2755639243)
Concept ACK
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32110#issuecomment-2755639243)
Concept ACK