💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32998#issuecomment-3084085825)
agreed, build issue also on my end with gcc 13.3.0

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "policy: make pathological transactions packed with legacy sigops non-standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521#issuecomment-3084094225)
reACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32521/commits/96da68a38fa295d2414685739c41b8626e198d27

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "test: Do not pass tests on unhandled exceptions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33001#discussion_r2213372838)
All these exception handlers (except SkipTest) have the same behaviour, except for making the logs less useful by hiding the actual error. Can't we just remove all (except SkipTest) and let the exception speak for itself?

<details>
<summary>git diff on fad0cd510c</summary>

```diff
diff --git a/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py b/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py
index 21007d9156..17e5a6b397 100755
--- a/test/functional/test_framework/test_framework.py
+++
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32998#issuecomment-3084135372)
Minified this is:
```bash
# podman run -it ubuntu:noble

apt update && apt upgrade -y
apt install g++ qt6-base-dev qt6-tools-dev git

git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
cd bitcoin
git fetch origin pull/32998/head:32998
git checkout 32998

/usr/lib/qt6/libexec/moc -I/usr/include/c++/13 --output-dep-file -o test.moc /bitcoin/src/qt/intro.cpp
usr/include/c++/13/bits/cpp_type_traits.:69:1: error: Parse error at "std"
```

💬 dongcarl commented on issue "Guix build fails on M4 macOS host with Ubuntu in UTM":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32759#issuecomment-3084139301)
Don't have full context but it's curious what causes `guix` to want to `set armhf-linux personality` in the first place.

Clearly M4 macOS hosts are `aarch64-linux`, and as @Sjors mentions:
- `guix build --system=armhf-linux hello` "produces the same error"
- `guix build --system=aarch64-linux hello --no-substitutes` does work

Another clue from the Guix manual:

> **Note**: Building for an armhf-linux system is unconditionally enabled on aarch64-linux machines, although certain aarch64 chipset
...

🤔 furszy reviewed a pull request: "index: initial sync speedup, parallelize process"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/26966#pullrequestreview-3029621925)
> I tried to use this to boost the silent payment indexer, but I don't know what I'm doing :-) [Sjors#96](https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/pull/96)

@Sjors, see https://github.com/furszy/bitcoin-core/commits/2025_bip352_blind_fix.
Note: I only spent a few minutes with it and the test seem to pass (I'm partially afk these days). Let me know how it goes and could check it in detail next week.
The first commit there (413ce51bf10326a6c56bd4250f9a9f19fde44ed4) is merely a code improvement + clean
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32998#issuecomment-3084150541)
> > CI failure seems to be due to [a bug in qt6 6.4](https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-31496?focusedId=888930&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#comment-888930):
>
> Although both failed CI job use Clang 20.1.7, the error can also be reproduced with GCC 13.3.

[Refactoring](https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/commits/pr32998/0717.refactored/) helps.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "validation: docs and cleanups for MemPoolAccept coins views":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32973#issuecomment-3084178413)
@marcofleon

This seed:
ALoAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZNpogAyAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAB5AAAA
AAAhAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABk2miADIAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAHkAAAAA
ACEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABwAAAGTaaIAMgAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAA
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAn////AZNpogAyAAAAAAAAAQAA
AAAAAAAAAAEAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACNAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
AAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABkYXRhZGlyYXRhAAAA

Should cause failure if you ap
...

📝 brunoerg opened a pull request: "test: add option to skip large re-org test in feature_block"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33003)
Fixes #32877

This PR adds a config flag `--skipreorg` which is used to skip the large re-org test. According to corecheck, `feature_block` is our slowest functional test and primarily because of this large re-org test. However, this test might not be useful for the mutation analysis of some files and could be skipped to save a huge amount of time.

```
time ./build/test/functional/feature_block.py --skipreorg
./build/test/functional/feature_block.py --skipreorg 11.38s user 0.33s system
...

👋 brunoerg's pull request is ready for review: "test: add option to skip large re-org test in feature_block"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33003)

👍 willcl-ark approved a pull request: "ci: Use APT_LLVM_V in msan task"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32999#pullrequestreview-3029741547)
ACK fad040a5787a8ac0a13aef5c54e5a675de239e92

Code changes look correct to me.

In the CI run this installed `clang-20.1.7` from `apt`, before cloning `https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project -b llvmorg-20.1.7` and building the llvm runtimes with msan enabled.

nit: I do notice that bitcoin configure output claims it's using clang from `/bin/clang++` which differs from the `update-alternatives` dir used: `/usr/bin/clang++`, but it appears to be the correct version so I guess it's an `apt inst
...

💬 Sjors commented on issue "Guix build fails on M4 macOS host with Ubuntu in UTM":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32759#issuecomment-3084264672)
> Perhaps the M4 chipset doesn't allow for this functionality either.

That's quite possible, because trying to run the arm CI job also doesn't work, see #31344.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "ci: Use APT_LLVM_V in msan task":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32999#issuecomment-3084286466)
> bin

It is a symlink:

```
# podman run --rm 'ubuntu:questing' ls -ld /bin
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 7 Apr 24 16:59 /bin -> usr/bin

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: add option to skip large re-org test in feature_block":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33003#discussion_r2213532921)
i wonder if the small test cases can be run before the reorg, to avoid having to branch on the move_tip

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "net, pcp: handle multi-part responses and filter for default route while querying default gateway":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32159#issuecomment-3084380035)
Put this on the `v30.0` milestone.

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "checkqueue: implement a new scriptcheck worker pool with atomic variables":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/32791#issuecomment-3084382725)
Are the first two commits related to the PR? Seem REST-related?

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: Do not pass tests on unhandled exceptions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33001#discussion_r2213588799)
Agree; thx, done

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "ci, iwyu: Treat warnings as errors for specific directories":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31308#issuecomment-3084437964)
> may be good to fix the aarch64 ci.

Fixed.

💬 sybot99 commented on issue "GUI bitcoin core shows wrong amount":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/32976#issuecomment-3084461340)
> coin control is an expert feature, but you can enable it in
>
> ```
> Settings > Options > Wallet
> Check "Enable coin control features (experts only!)"
> ```
>
> The RPC has a manual, you can just go to "Window"->"Console" and type `help`.

Yes I understand this. But I dont understand how to send that btc(UTXO as I understand) from invisible wallet to my visible wallet with all other btc )

💬 stickies-v commented on pull request "test: Do not pass tests on unhandled exceptions":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/33001#discussion_r2213637486)
Printing the exception `e` seems more useful than "Unexpected exception", and imo completely obviates the need for having the `CalledProcessError` and `KeyboardInterrupt` exceptions?