Bitcoin Core Github
44 subscribers
119K links
Download Telegram
💬 m3dwards commented on issue "bench: `linearizeoptimallyexample11` benchmark now running 4x slow than previously":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31178#issuecomment-2448635473)
The slowdown appears to be introduced with https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/1c7ca6e64de9b47b2295c81cb0fedd432ffaf001

Not sure why yet.
💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "build: increase minimum supported Windows to 10.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31172#issuecomment-2448647985)
> I've built this branch on Fedora 41, linking against UCRT (see [this](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/30210#issuecomment-2446405138) workflow), but the issue persists.

+1: built this branch on Fedora 40 doing a similar workflow and the same crash occurred:

```bash
ucrt64-make -C depends/ HOST=x86_64-w64-mingw32 -j $(nproc) # rpm macro: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.ucrt64
cmake -B build --toolchain depends/x86_64-w64-mingw32/toolchain.cmake
cmake --build build -j $(nproc)
``
...
💬 davidgumberg commented on pull request "[POC] ci: Test cross-built Windows executables on Windows natively":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31176#issuecomment-2448653950)
Concept ACK

#31172 @ https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31172/commits/7dd0ee89a092c6ec4e305fbdb0cf3afa9e41cab6 passes CI but trivially fails to start on any Windows system because Wine lacks some undocumented Windows behavior.
🤔 hodlinator reviewed a pull request: "msvc: Update vcpkg manifest"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31186#pullrequestreview-2406377117)
Tested on Windows 11 Home:
```
> rmdir /S build
> cmake -B build --preset vs2022-static
> cmake --build build --config Release -j<X>
> build\src\qt\Release\bitcoin-qt.exe (started successfully)
```
💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "msvc: Update vcpkg manifest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31186#discussion_r1823427758)
<details>
<summary>

`cat vcpkg.json | jq -S` results in a different order, seems more lexicographical to me?

</summary>

```json
{
"$schema": "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/microsoft/vcpkg-tool/main/docs/vcpkg.schema.json",
"builtin-baseline": "9edb1b8e590cc086563301d735cae4b6e732d2d2",
"default-features": [
"wallet",
"zeromq",
"tests",
"qt5"
],
"dependencies": [
"boost-date-time",
"boost-multi-index",
"boost-signals2",
"libeve
...
💬 hodlinator commented on pull request "msvc: Update vcpkg manifest":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31186#discussion_r1823436767)
`$comment` should appear ordered before `$schema`, unless the latter *must* appear first?
🤔 tdb3 reviewed a pull request: "Policy: Report reason inputs are non standard"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29060#pullrequestreview-2406688998)
I'm a fan of the more descriptive errors.

However, would some of these more descriptive errors flow down to RPC responses? (e.g. `testmempoolaccept`).

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30212#issuecomment-2347371722
> Does bitcoind consider this to be a breaking change? The new error message may be "more accurate", but for clients that were matching on this error to figure out why a transaction was rejected, this breaks old behavior.
💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "Policy: Report reason inputs are non standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29060#discussion_r1823630805)
Could also clarify that invalid TxValidationState returned describes the first nonstandard input encountered.

For example:
```diff
- * invalid TxValidationState which states why an input is not standard
+ * invalid TxValidationState which states why the first invalid input is not standard
```
💬 tdb3 commented on pull request "Policy: Report reason inputs are non standard":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/29060#discussion_r1823661556)
Instantiating the CScript here could allow re-use later (in `txToNonStd4.vin[0].scriptSig = CScript(op_return, op_return + sizeof(op_return));`)
💬 sipa commented on pull request "Introduce `g_fuzzing` global for fuzzing checks":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/31093#issuecomment-2448864279)
This means that no `Assume` can be compiled out in production builds anymore, as they all involve a `g_fuzzing` check?
💬 sipa commented on issue "bench: `linearizeoptimallyexample11` benchmark now running 4x slow than previously":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31178#issuecomment-2448867990)
@m3dwards Thanks for digging! I believe that explains it: since #31093, `Assume()` calls are no longer optimized out in production builds.
💬 Sjors commented on pull request "build: Switch to Qt 6":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/30997#issuecomment-2448891405)
I'm still confused why Ninja is needed and why nothing complains when it's missing.

> Ninja is required to build the qt package in depends. It is mentioned in depends/README.md.

It only mentions it in the context of an Ubuntu & Debian install.

I did a depends build for af05dd9a12b89224dc7ad229698eeceb3e560ed4 again on Intel macOS 15.0.1 with Xcode 16 and no Ninja. It seems to work fine, at first glance.

I didn't try without Xcode since my laptop seems to be in a weird state: https:
...
💬 davidgumberg commented on issue "bench: `linearizeoptimallyexample11` benchmark now running 4x slow than previously":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/31178#issuecomment-2448905871)
> @m3dwards Thanks for digging! I believe that explains it: since #31093, `Assume()` calls are no longer optimized out in production builds.

I've reproduced this performance issue locally, and when you remove `g_fuzzing` from `inline_assertion_check` the regression goes away:

`./build/src/bench/bench_bitcoin -filter=LinearizeOptimallyExample11 -min-time=30000`

|branch | ns/op | op/s | err% | ins/op | cyc/op | IPC | bra/op
...
💬 Khanwafa232426 commented on something "":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/6e21dedbf2b3029c729108f225469b321a1b3d39#r148579531)
TTBp1cVNxDHUxetKwXof2cLfeRFWMqejhV
💬 Khanwafa232426 commented on something "":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/6e21dedbf2b3029c729108f225469b321a1b3d39#r148579539)
TTBp1cVNxDHUxetKwXof2cLfeRFWMqejhVTTBp1cVNxDHUxetKwXof2cLfeRFWMqejhVhttps://www.binance.com/fan-token/BWS/FCShakhtarFanverse?ref=CG5V70EE&registerChannel=fcshakhtar&utm_source=fan-token&utm_campaign=fcshakhtar-fanverse-invite