💬 fanquake commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#issuecomment-2277886777)
I think we can improve the output when `-DWITH_CCACHE=OFF` is used. Depending on the system, that output might be:
```bash
cmake -B build -DWITH_CCACHE=OFF
< snip >
Use ccache for compiling .............. ccache masquerades as the compiler
```
We should probably at least indicate that the option was respected by the build-system.

🤔 theStack reviewed a pull request: "depends: Make default `host` and `build` comparable"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30584#pullrequestreview-2230130108)
@hebasto: Ok, I can confirm that with OpenBSD 7.5 on master, the host/build values differ:

```
$ gmake print-host
host=amd64-unknown-openbsd7.5
$ gmake print-build
build=x86_64-unknown-openbsd7.5
```

while on the PR branch they are equal :heavy_check_mark:
```
$ gmake print-host
host=x86_64-unknown-openbsd7.5
$ gmake print-build
build=x86_64-unknown-openbsd7.5
```

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "assumeutxo: Drop block height from metadata":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30598#issuecomment-2277895352)
New torrent (untested and seeding might take a while to kick in): `magnet:?xt=urn:btih:596c26cc709e213fdfec997183ff67067241440c&dn=utxo-840000.dat&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Ftracker.bitcoin.sprovoost.nl%3A6969`

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "validation: do not wipe utxo cache for stats/scans/snapshots":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30610#issuecomment-2277900785)
I understand this is still WIP, but checked quickly how much the current impl would speed up the IBD (first 500k between https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/27a770b34b8f1dbb84760f442edb3e23a0c2420b and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/2a9c93871cea8c3b1d927a2559ef69ea76c9faf9), got the following:
```bash
hyperfine \
--runs 3 \
--parameter-list COMMIT 27a770,2a9c93 \
--prepare 'git checkout {COMMIT} && git clean -fxd && git reset --hard && ./autogen.sh && ./configure && make -j
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "guix: fix suggested fake date for openssl-1.1.1l":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29999#issuecomment-2277905851)
I partially wiped guix on my (AMD) Ubuntu 24.04 system (`sudo rm -rf /root/.cache/guix /var/guix /gnu/store`).

```sh
$ which guix
/usr/local/bin/guix
$ guix --version
guix (GNU Guix) 1.4.0
$ sudo --login guix pull --commit=efc26826400762207cde9f23802cfe75a737963c
```

This fails at `/gnu/store/bfirgq65ndhf63nn4q6vlkbha9zd931q-openssl-1.1.1l.drv`.

After the #30609 bump to `--commit=7bf1d7aeaffba15c4f680f93ae88fbef25427252` it still tries to build this OpenSSL version.

So even tho
...

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1711452798)
Addressed in https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/316.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1711453187)
Addressed in https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/316.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "guix: fix suggested fake date for openssl-1.1.1l":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29999#issuecomment-2277931416)
> So even though Bitcoin Core doesn't need it anymore, Guix itself still does

Would be nice to report this upstream, so that openssl-1.1.1l can be removed, but I guess the removal may not be trivial

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1711453782)
> As an alternative workaround, I'd suggest to use an extra configuration option `-DAPPEND_LDFLAGS="-Wl,-no_warn_duplicate_libraries"`.

Addressed in https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/316.

💬 hebasto commented on pull request "build: Introduce CMake-based build system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30454#discussion_r1711453934)
Addressed in https://github.com/hebasto/bitcoin/pull/316.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "guix: fix suggested fake date for openssl-1.1.1l":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29999#issuecomment-2277938747)
This has been open for a few years, but no recent activity: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/56137

💬 sipa commented on pull request "validation: do not wipe utxo cache for stats/scans/snapshots":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30610#issuecomment-2277939198)
@paplorinc Huh, this PR shouldn't affect IBD speed at all.

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "test: remove `ExtractDestination` false assertion for `ANCHOR` script":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30616#issuecomment-2277962247)
(Could wait a day before merging this, to check if OSS-Fuzz also found it, because it should and so far has not)

📝 paplorinc opened a pull request: "test: TrySanitizeHexNumber fizz and unit testing coverage"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30618)
WIP: depends on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30569#discussion_r1706637780

Split out the test related recommendations from https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30569

--------

* https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30569#discussion_r1706637780

Use BOOST_CHECK_EQUAL for std::optional, arith_uint256, uint256, uint160

Example error before:
> unknown location:0: fatal error: in "validation_chainstatemanager_tests/chainstatemanager_args": std::bad_optional_access: bad_o
...

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "guix: fix suggested fake date for openssl-1.1.1l":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29999#issuecomment-2277974891)
Once openssl-1 stuff is gone, we can drop the GnuTLS workaround instructions along with it.

It had a similar problem in 3.6.12, but has been updated to 3.7.2. That was included in the [Guix 1.4.0 release](https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2022/gnu-guix-1.4.0-released) in late 2022.

(or I could reword the GnuTLS workaround text to refer to openssl 1)

💬 maflcko commented on pull request "guix: fix suggested fake date for openssl-1.1.1l":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29999#issuecomment-2277975393)
I presume this will be fixed in guix 1.5, but someone claimed if it isn't already fixed, then it is a bug, see https://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix/2023-09/msg00112.html

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "node: reduce unsafe uint256S usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30569#discussion_r1711493167)
Split out to pr [`aec1c90` (#30618)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30618/commits/aec1c901118311eec5dc24104a7439377c8fd6de)

💬 paplorinc commented on pull request "node: reduce unsafe uint256S usage":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30569#discussion_r1711494297)
Split out to other pr: [`fd6d110` (#30618)](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30618/commits/fd6d1106c07d009a9f9517d905feee6f4136d8d7)

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "guix: fix suggested fake date for openssl-1.1.1l":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29999#issuecomment-2277984815)
Interesting, I haven't tried deleting `.cache/guix/checkouts` as suggested in that thread. I'm going to wait for guix pull to finish first, then take a look at `guix graph --type=reverse-package openssl-1.1.1l` (`reverse-bag`?)

💬 instagibbs commented on pull request "test: remove `ExtractDestination` false assertion for `ANCHOR` script":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30616#issuecomment-2277986584)
ACK a4f2b185732649eeea4a042cebd90d0e0e12cc92

this was leftover from when anchor outputs were bare OP_TRUE, which don't have an address