💬 fanquake commented on pull request "guix: Remove another leftover from #29648":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29797#issuecomment-2035021336)
Guix Build (aarch64):
```bash
8e7bddb8fa49c857bc9a815a7f27f2d60f8a2f8955966eff467ee86c0d0776f6 guix-build-3cb80febb876/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/SHA256SUMS.part
de0c0624b55418b6638b4852cbe4527c5fb4a2ccbb82d442e5dff0febc947a70 guix-build-3cb80febb876/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-3cb80febb876-aarch64-linux-gnu-debug.tar.gz
5f37064b7496125b90f7df1fda7df3e6545149274bf737361579c0e9be94f6f8 guix-build-3cb80febb876/output/aarch64-linux-gnu/bitcoin-3cb80febb876-aarch64-linux-gnu.tar.gz
02ad13
...

🤔 glozow reviewed a pull request: "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#pullrequestreview-1977282272)
approach ACK

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1550035286)
needs doc?

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1550033829)
nit: this is unnecessary

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1550056609)
nit: documentation please, e.g. number of elements to track

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1550045138)
+1, was going to say this should be removed in 2ef71c73582be554e565ada3f8a6ca77c2cd79f1, or say we are avoiding false warnings instead of preventing tampering of adjusted time

💬 glozow commented on pull request "Simplify network-adjusted time warning logic":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29623#discussion_r1550042121)
Or its own rpc commit?

💬 vostrnad commented on issue "IBD performance regression in 27.0rc1 on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29785#issuecomment-2035080712)
> Can you also let us know if you're using any particular config options etc.

Beyond the bare minimum (`-connect`, `-datadir`, RPC user/pass etc.) I'm just increasing dbcache and enabling pruning, but neither of those should kick in at this block height. I'll test again using the defaults just to be sure.

> how are you able to perform so many runs in such a short amount of time? Do you have access to a lot of compute?

I'm not doing full IBD, just to block 120,000. As much as I'd like to
...

💬 mzumsande commented on issue "IBD performance regression in 27.0rc1 on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29785#issuecomment-2035090717)
Does it also appear with `-reindex` (without a second node)?

💬 pablomartin4btc commented on pull request "refactor: interfaces, make 'createTransaction' less error-prone ":
(https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/pull/807#discussion_r1550107069)
It's ok, I got confused at first glance but then read more about how `util::Result` is being used in all our code.

https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui/blob/0d509bab45d292caeaf34600e57b5928757c6005/src/util/result.h#L19-L33

💬 sipa commented on issue "IBD performance regression in 27.0rc1 on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29785#issuecomment-2035114828)
Or even with `-reindex-chainstate` (which does even less)?

💬 theuni commented on pull request "[RFC] Switch and/or align debugging flags (back) to `-Og`":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29796#issuecomment-2035139205)
Concept ACK.

I think msan is a good proxy for what we want enabled. [From its docs](https://releases.llvm.org/18.1.1/tools/clang/docs/MemorySanitizer.html):

> To get a reasonable performance add -O1 or higher. To get meaningful stack traces in error messages add -fno-omit-frame-pointer. To get perfect stack traces you may need to disable inlining (just use -O1) and tail call elimination (-fno-optimize-sibling-calls).


From [gcc's docs](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Option
...

💬 drkhero commented on issue "rpc method removeprunedfunds should take an array of txids":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29466#issuecomment-2035144836)
@furszy @glozow Still waiting on this issue to be fixed. Ryan has been waiting for a while now. Thanks!

💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "cli: Detect port errors in rpcconnect and rpcport":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29521#issuecomment-2035153866)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29521/commits/cb4f9fc5847a7e53fe45d54b1fddf504dee5af82

The changes in `bitcoin-cli.cpp` since the last ACK look good to me, and the test coverage is more extensive.

Tested with `make check` and running the functional test suite.

I also verified that passing bad ports to `rpcconnect` and `rpcport` trigger the warning.

💬 maflcko commented on issue "rpc method removeprunedfunds should take an array of txids":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29466#issuecomment-2035174527)
@drkhero A fix is in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29468 , but it is waiting for review and testing. If you want to move it forward, you can help with review and testing.

💬 jonatack commented on issue "Compilation failure when using `--enable-fuzz` and `--enable-debug` due to inline asm":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29801#issuecomment-2035182787)
FWIW, unable to reproduce on arm64 macOS 14.4.1 with Homebrew clang 17.0.6.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "depends: add new LLVM debug macro":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29781#discussion_r1550178421)
I have a hard time following what llvm does each release here. Why is https://libcxx.llvm.org/Hardening.html not available as versioned URL per release?

https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-hardening-in-libc/73925 claims there are no breaking changes in the 18 release. So I wonder if everything can be kept as-is for now, because I suspect no one will be compiling with 19 for now?

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: add new LLVM debug macro":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29781#discussion_r1550197827)
> Why is https://libcxx.llvm.org/Hardening.html not available as versioned URL per release?

Looks like it's here: https://releases.llvm.org/18.1.0/projects/libcxx/docs/Hardening.html

> claims there are no breaking changes in the 18 release.

I've also had a hard time following, and I think some of the changes were landed, reverted, and finally re-landed. According too https://releases.llvm.org/18.1.0/projects/libcxx/docs/ReleaseNotes/18.html:

> New hardened modes for the library have
...

💬 vostrnad commented on issue "IBD performance regression in 27.0rc1 on Windows":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29785#issuecomment-2035211285)
I've set up a benchmark that performs a partial IBD and then runs `-reindex`, however the reindexing takes about ten times as long as the IBD, with CPU and disk usage sitting near zero. Same for `-reindex-chainstate`. Is this normal? Even if it is, is it even worth benchmarking for a difference between 27.0rc1 and 26.0? At first glance it seems about as slow.

💬 petertodd commented on pull request "Change Luke Dashjr seed to dashjr-list-of-p2p-nodes.us":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29691#issuecomment-2035243135)
ACK https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29691/commits/4f273ab4360c9aa72c2feb78787e1811ab58dc16

DNS seems to resolve just fine for me, and returns IP addresses with a fair bit of overlap with the ones my DNS seed has.