roconnor_ has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
ghost43 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
ghost43 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jamesob has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
Kaizen_Kintsugi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
ghostkeeper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #23281: test: check that bumpfee RPC fails for txs with descendants in mempool (master...202110-test-bumpfee_test_descendant_in_mempool) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23281
bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev [#bitcoin-core-dev]
Davidbak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jespada has quit [Quit: My MacBook has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
jespada has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<Davidbak>
`build_msvc/vcpkg.json` lists `double-conversion` as a required package - this doesn't show up in `doc/dependencies.md` nor does it show up anywhere else in the repo (via grep). Still needed, if so why? Or maybe an leftover from some past need no longer required?
<Davidbak>
(Or maybe somehow some other package needs it, but only on Windows?)
ghostkeeper has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
jespada has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] theuni opened pull request #23282: build: remove build stubs for external leveldb (master...no_external_leveldb) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23282
bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev [#bitcoin-core-dev]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
earnestly has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jespada has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jespada has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Kaizen_Kintsugi has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Kaizen_Kintsugi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Kaizen_Kintsugi has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<Davidbak>
in `randomenv.cpp` a `memory_cleanse` is done (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blame/master/src/randomenv.cpp#L92) for a vector full of Windows performance data. Why? (It doesn't seem security related to me, so I'm wondering about the philosophy. Note that at line 87 just above the vector is resized without cleansing the soon-to-be-freed data.)
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Kaizen_Kintsugi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Kaizen_Kintsugi has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
cmirror has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
cmirror has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<Davidbak>
(it could, if needed, be using the `zero_after_free_allocator`)
morcos_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
morcos has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
morcos_ is now known as morcos
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<jeremyrubin>
davidbak: i think we seed our RNG with that data
<jeremyrubin>
so if an adversary can learn what we seed the rng with that would be bad
<Davidbak>
well, it is one of many such seed input - and in fact it comes from the os - but if that's the philosophy then I do understand it.
<Davidbak>
now, my question would be: suppose I contribute a (tested) two line fix that 1) makes the vector's allocator be zero-after-free and 2) removes the then-unnecessary memory_cleanse call. Would this be something worth doing in the sense that reviewers would look at it? (I am brand new to the process, and everything I've read - the really good docs and external blog post on how to contribute - emphasize making your PRs
<Davidbak>
important (as well as correct, etc. etc.) so that it doesn't burden the scarce resource of reviewers. So what would be the likelihood this change would be considered interesting?
<Davidbak>
(for me: it might be a "good first issue"? that's what I'm actually trying to find: a _good first issue_!)
<Davidbak>
BTW - I'm also looking to contribute to reviews. But at this stage - I find it difficult for two reasons. First: some of the active recent reviews are very complex refactorings that have been in progress for a long time. I'm not ready for that on this projects
<Davidbak>
Second: a lot of the recent active PRs are in the build system. I'm _definitely_ not ready for that on this project.
<Davidbak>
It's hard to tell (for me) what are the reviews that would be useful to look at because I have the capability. I'm not ready (no reputation at the project) to do any concept ack/nak - so I'm just looking for code to read and test.
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<_aj_>
davidbak: for me, the best "first issues" are always adding more test coverage. touching anything security related seems a very high risk way to get started
ghostkeeper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<_aj_>
davidbak: there's fuzz (c++/libfuzz), unit (c++) and functional (python) testing code, all of which have plenty of room to cover more things, imho
<_aj_>
davidbak: if you find an interesting PR that you understand, adding tests for it is both helpful to review and usually helpful on its own merits too ("hi, i added some tests here <link>, feel free to grab the commit")
<Davidbak>
ah, I haven't worked in an environment where you can add commits (even tests) to something someone else is actively working on - i.e., authored, opened the PR.
<Davidbak>
that's acceptable, for tests? (perhaps if coordinated in PR comments, or how?)
<Davidbak>
oh wait, i see now - I add the commit in my own fork and point to it ... ok, that I get
<_aj_>
yeah, exactly
<Davidbak>
haven't done it before but sounds totally reasonable ... and tests, I do get that. ok!
ghostkeeper has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
<_aj_>
they might pull the commit from your branch into their PR, or you could PR it later separately, or it could just have been something helpful for review
<_aj_>
best is if your new tests actually find some bugs, of course
<Davidbak>
_aj_ - is there another user name I could correlate your nickname with? I've just read some blog posts by a guy with initials AJ for example ...
<Davidbak>
actually JA
<_aj_>
i'm ajtowns on social medias
<Davidbak>
ok
<Davidbak>
yep there you are on github's hit parade, thanks
Kaizen_Kintsugi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
promag_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<Davidbak>
btw, to slightly change the subject, but stay on tests: the project guidelines insist that every commit in a PR be independently buildable/testable correctly. So that means the test goes in the same commit as the bug fix, or a subsequent one. Now, a typical test pattern is to write the test first - see it fail - and then do the fix. With the approach here it is up to the individual PR reviewers to stage that on their
<Davidbak>
local machines themselves, correct? (Or is there another way?)
promag has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
<Davidbak>
(by the way - I am _not_ taking a position here on TDD - that's NOT what I mean by write first see it fail. I'm talking about verification that a bug fix PR really fixed a _bug_.
Kaizen_Kintsugi has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
<_aj_>
davidbak: you can still do things that way, just don't have separate commits for the test and the change. i like to commit the test first and have it succeed for the old behaviour, then change the test and code, so that it still succeeds and the commit documents the effect the code change has on the tests
<_aj_>
davidbak: you can also do a "git rebase -i" to reorder the commits in your own tree and check the test fails without the commit
<Davidbak>
oh i know i can do that _locally_ i was wondering how to make it easier for the _other_ reviewers
<Davidbak>
ah! hadn't thought of that! that's probably what people who are interested do. thanks!
<_aj_>
oh #21496 is up for grabs, and was already mostly done
<Davidbak>
i'll look at "good first issues" again - got a bit scared off of it earlier in the week when I found one, looked at it, discovered two prs had attacked it months ago, gone nowhere, one with a comment that said "i don't like this idea anymore", and I mentioned it here and marcofalke agreed: not good first issue and removed the tag. So ... I was looking elsewhere ... but now i'll look at reaosnably active PRs to see about
<Davidbak>
test coverage since that is something I can do at this stage. thanks a lot!
<Davidbak>
(P.S. still wondering about my question above regarding `double-conversion` library for windows, don't want that to get lost in the chat log)
<fanquake>
davidbak: remove it and try compiling
<fanquake>
iirc it's used by qt
<Davidbak>
yeah that was going to be my first step after asking about it ... so I'll do that and report back ...
<fanquake>
Kiminuo it's the sha256 sum of the file
<fanquake>
i.e the sha256sum of *-win64-setup-unsigned.exe for commit 5b7210c8745d9572fe94620f848d4ee1304c91a7 is 73d5ba8460a6785100524b5d7332639c43cc3f61f536e7fa88f64acb0a37d7ad
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
smartin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
dviola has quit [Quit: WeeChat 3.3]
dviola has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Kaizen_Kintsugi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
ghostkeeper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
ghostkeeper has quit [Ping timeout: 268 seconds]
goatpig has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Kaizen_Kintsugi has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
mekster669 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
fanquake has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
gribble has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
panpan has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
mekster66 has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
jnewbery has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
mekster669 is now known as mekster66
panpan has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<Kiminuo>
fanquake: So the hash changed and the file is different. Should it be the same? Or are you interested in the hash?
<Kiminuo>
*Or are you interested in the *new* hash?
<fanquake>
I'm not sure what you are asking. Given either column is building a different commit. You'd expect the hashes to be different
<_aj_>
FUZZ=rpc src/test/fuzz/fuzz </dev/null fails unconditionally on master for me (enumeratesigners rpc is missing from rpc.cpp). shouldn't some fuzz thing somewhere already be picking this up?
<Kiminuo>
fanquake: Right. So the new hash can be verified by other people that they obtain the same hash, right? That's the idea behind GUIX. Is it not?
Kaizen_Kintsugi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<fanquake>
Kiminuo: sure, others could build the same commits and see if their results match. The point of the bot is also just to check that the builds succed, and provide build logs to diff, and binaries you can test/compare.
<Kiminuo>
Ah, I see. Thanks!
<fanquake>
_aj_: odd
jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Kaizen_Kintsugi has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
earnestly has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Victorsueca has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev [#bitcoin-core-dev]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
tla2k21 has quit [Ping timeout: 276 seconds]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
ghostkeeper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
tla2k21 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
ghostkeeper has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
ghostkeeper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] hebasto opened pull request #23286: ci, refactor: Disable binaries for Android task explicitly (master...211015-android) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23286
bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev [#bitcoin-core-dev]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
dhruv has quit [Quit: leaving]
dhruv has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Kaizen_Kintsugi has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Kaizen_Kintsugi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Kaizen_Kintsugi has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Kaizen_Kintsugi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] theStack opened pull request #23287: test: get and decode tx with a single `gettransaction` RPC call (master...202110-test-fetch_and_decode_tx_with_single_RPC_call) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23287
bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev [#bitcoin-core-dev]
Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 246 seconds]
Talkless has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
gribble has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
mikehu44 has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
mikehu44 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
mikehu44 has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
mikehu44 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
prayank has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<prayank>
davidbak: if you are looking for a "good first review" #23268 is very easy to review and test. Just added dots in domains which fixes an issue and improves security. You can read the details in issue created by practicalswift, understand issue, try things and comment in pull request.
bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev [#bitcoin-core-dev]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<andytoshi>
i imagine it was just "this should be bigger than 32 bits on all systems, and also signed ints with no danger of overflowing are less footgunny than unsigned ones"
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<sipa>
quite possibly
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
prayank has quit [Quit: irc thread exit]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<Davidbak>
@prayank - thanks, will look at that
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 264 seconds]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
sipsorcery has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
sipsorcery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
lukedashjr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
luke-jr has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
lukedashjr is now known as luke-jr
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Kaizen_Kintsugi has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
KaizenKintsugi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Guyver2 has left #bitcoin-core-dev [Closing Window]
roconnor has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
ghostkeeper has quit []
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
bitcoin-git has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<bitcoin-git>
[bitcoin] achow101 opened pull request #23288: tests: remove usage of LegacyScriptPubKeyMan from some wallet tests (master...rm-testWallet-tests) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/23288
bitcoin-git has left #bitcoin-core-dev [#bitcoin-core-dev]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
rex4539 has quit []
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
AaronvanW has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
<yanmaani>
Is there a way to totally clean out the bitcoin repository, more than doing make clean? mk clean still leaves some stuff, like ./configure
<yanmaani>
short of rm -rf * && git clone, that is
<roconnor>
make distclean may do what you want.
<roconnor>
maybe make distclean-am
rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<yanmaani>
roconnor: will that keep my changes to the source?
<sipa>
git clean -dfx
<sipa>
will delete all non-repository files
<sipa>
it will not touch changes you've made to repository files
<sipa>
(but still, commit them anyway)
rex4539 has quit [Client Quit]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<yanmaani>
thanks
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
Talkless has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
rex4539 has quit []
rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
jarthur has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
rex4539 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
rex4539 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
rex4539 has quit [Client Quit]
c_arc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
<yanmaani>
from a fresh install, I can't build bitcoin core. I get the error:
<yanmaani>
undefined reference to `__muloti4'
<yanmaani>
compiling with clang. no sanitizers enabled.
<yanmaani>
if I force it to use libc++, I get errors about boost::filesystem instead.
<yanmaani>
is this a known issue?
<yanmaani>
or is there something off with my build system?
<sipa>
what kind of system?
<yanmaani>
sipa: debian, clang, everything's pretty normal I think
<sipa>
clean install?
<yanmaani>
of the system?
<sipa>
yes
<yanmaani>
no this is my development machine
<yanmaani>
I mean I suppose there must be something wrong, if it's not a known issue and bitcoin builds normally for everyone else.