📝 MarcoFalke opened a pull request: "fuzz: Print error message when FUZZ is missing"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27672)
Some trivial UX improvements.

* Change the exit code for `PRINT_ALL_FUZZ_TARGETS_AND_ABORT` and `WRITE_ALL_FUZZ_TARGETS_AND_ABORT` to `EXIT_SUCCESS` instead of `Aborted (core dumped)`.
* Print readable error message when `FUZZ` is missing instead of `Aborted (core dumped)`.
* Clarify that a fuzz target needs to be compiled into the executable.

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "fuzz: Print error message when FUZZ is missing":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27672#issuecomment-1549450433)
(Also contains some no-op code to allow for easier hacking)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "depends: Boost 1.82.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27671#issuecomment-1549456481)
Seems a bit early to bump, given that no distro ships with that version, and there is no need for the Bitcoin Core release binaries to be the first ones to test the new boost release.

💬 sipa commented on issue "Allow getblockfrompeer to use any peer":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27652#issuecomment-1549464215)
I don't think this is hard to implement, and doesn't need #27626 (it wouldn't use compact blocks).

We effectively already have a background block download fetching algorithm, that regularly decides which blocks should be fetched from which peers (see `FindNextBlocksToDownload` in net_processing.cpp). I think it should be possible to have a list/set somewhere in the net processing state of CBlockIndexes/uint256s/... of blocks to-redownload. If any peer served by `FindNextBlocksToDownload` happ
...

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "depends: Boost 1.82.0":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27671#issuecomment-1549464475)
> given that no distro ships with that version

Pretty much all of the rolling/modern distros, i.e Alpine, FreeBSD, Gentoo, Tumbleweed, are already shipping this.

📝 Sjors opened a pull request: "ConnectTip: don't log total disk read time in bench"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27673)
This incorrectly assumed num_blocks_total would be greater than 0. This is not guaranteed until the ConnectBlock call right below it.

The total and average metric is not very useful because it does not distinguish between blocks read from disk and those loaded from memory. So rather than fixing the divide by zero issue, we just drop the metric.

Fixes #27635

💬 Sjors commented on issue "--with-sanitizers=float-divide-by-zero crash with -debug=bench in Chainstate::ConnectTip":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27635#issuecomment-1549472481)
Opened #27673 which drops the offending metric.

💬 sipa commented on pull request "Enable HW-accelerated implementations of SHA256 for MSVC builds":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/24773#discussion_r1195017841)
Yeah, MSVC does not support inline asm at all. You have to use intrinsics.

💬 Sjors commented on pull request "ConnectTip: don't log total disk read time in bench":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27673#discussion_r1195022903)
Fwiw I think this warning is useful because many of the bench logs use `/ num_blocks_total` and `ConnectTip` has an `assert(num_blocks_total > 0)` just a few lines down.

💬 ajtowns commented on pull request "Relay own transactions only via short-lived Tor or I2P connections":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27509#discussion_r1195027764)
We don't accept transactions while in IBD, so sending an INV first might be an easy way to catch that condition too. Checking that we're on the same tip, and respecting feefilter might also catch those cases, and be worth doing anyway though.

📝 hebasto opened a pull request: "ci: Fix "Number of CPUs" output"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27674)
This PR is a follow-up to https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27616:

- on [master](https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/task/5809898840129536/logs/ci.log):
```
Number of CPUs \(nproc\): $(nproc)
```

- this [PR](https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/task/6495994095861760/logs/ci.log):
```
Number of CPUs (nproc): 32
```

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "ci: A few fixes of `ccache` issues":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27084#issuecomment-1549536659)
What is the status of this

💬 fanquake commented on pull request "bench: Benchmark all `SHA256` implementations that are available on the system":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27598#discussion_r1195062719)
> Hm, I don't really like that all of that SHA256 specific code is becoming part of the benchmark framework.

Yea. Concept NACK on the current approach.

💬 TheCharlatan commented on issue "builds: Review use of `@`-prefixed lines in our Makefiles":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18891#issuecomment-1549542504)
With #27041 merged, I checked the remaining few instances and think they all serve a purpose, so I think this could be closed now.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: "builds: Review use of `@`-prefixed lines in our Makefiles"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18891)

💬 fanquake commented on issue ""Create Unsigned" should not show the message: "The amount exceeds you balance" without suggesting alternatives":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27659#issuecomment-1549545668)
> Based on that, maybe close this issue?

Ok. Seems like this can be followed up with in the [GUI repo](https://github.com/bitcoin-core/gui), in any case.

✅ fanquake closed an issue: ""Create Unsigned" should not show the message: "The amount exceeds you balance" without suggesting alternatives"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/27659)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ci: Fix "Number of CPUs" output":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27674#issuecomment-1549552123)
lgtm ACK 5d49d987319f262ecbef6ff688fc674ed3b5fa43

🤔 jarolrod reviewed a pull request: "guix: document when certain patches can be dropped"
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27668#pullrequestreview-1428445500)
ACK a09269a146b1e32a0e7979692f4455cc2f6faeae

Can confirm the note on the long jump patch ;)

💬 MarcoFalke commented on pull request "ConnectTip: don't log total disk read time in bench":
(https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/27673#discussion_r1195083821)
I'd say it would be fine to move the `++num_blocks_total;` to this line instead, and the `assert` as well. Self-documenting code is better than potentially outdated docs.