If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.
Conflicts
Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
#31522 (ci: Enable DEBUG=1 for one GCC-12 build to catch 117966 regressions by maflcko)
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.
DrahtBot added the label
Build system
on Apr 15, 2024
maflcko
commented at 8:35 am on April 16, 2024:
member
For reference, the previous bump was e1ce5b8ae9124717c00dca71a5c5b43a7f5ad177, which is in master only and not yet in a release branch.
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Apr 17, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Apr 17, 2024
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Apr 17, 2024
maflcko
commented at 1:38 pm on April 17, 2024:
member
CI should be bumped as well, if this is taken out of draft. Just leaving a comment here, so that it isn’t forgotten.
fanquake force-pushed
on May 22, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on May 23, 2024
fanquake
commented at 9:11 am on May 23, 2024:
member
CI should be bumped as well, if this is taken out of draft.
0torcontrol.cpp: In static member function ‘static void TorControlConnection::readcb(bufferevent*, void*)’:
1torcontrol.cpp:94:28: error: ‘result’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized] 294 | self->message.code = ToIntegral<int>(s.substr(0, 3)).value_or(0);
3 | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4In file included from ./netaddress.h:14,
5 from ./torcontrol.h:11,
6 from torcontrol.cpp:6:
7./util/strencodings.h:184:7: note: ‘result’ was declared here
8184 | T result;
9 | ^~~~~~
10cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors
11make[2]: *** [Makefile:11115: libbitcoin_node_a-torcontrol.o] Error 1
Will re-add -Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized.
DrahtBot added the label
CI failed
on May 23, 2024
DrahtBot
commented at 11:37 am on May 23, 2024:
contributor
🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Make sure to run all tests locally, according to the
documentation.
Possibly this is due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being
incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest
commit of the target branch.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
DrahtBot removed the label
DrahtBot Guix build requested
on May 24, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on May 28, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on May 29, 2024
DrahtBot removed the label
CI failed
on May 29, 2024
fanquake referenced this in commit
4116c5f9a3
on Jun 5, 2024
fanquake referenced this in commit
c029775519
on Jun 5, 2024
fanquake referenced this in commit
2599655c1f
on Jun 5, 2024
fanquake referenced this in commit
ab08b28d91
on Jun 6, 2024
fanquake referenced this in commit
2ad6e8efa3
on Jun 8, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Jun 8, 2024
DrahtBot
commented at 12:25 pm on June 8, 2024:
contributor
🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Make sure to run all tests locally, according to the
documentation.
Possibly this is due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being
incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest
commit of the target branch.
Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.
in
ci/test/00_setup_env_win64.sh:10
in
c8de8c6dd2outdated
6@@ -7,13 +7,10 @@
7 export LC_ALL=C.UTF-8
8 9 export CONTAINER_NAME=ci_win64
10-export CI_IMAGE_NAME_TAG="docker.io/amd64/debian:bookworm" # Check that https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/g++-mingw-w64-x86-64-posix (version 12.2, similar to guix) can cross-compile
11+export CI_IMAGE_NAME_TAG="docker.io/amd64/debian:trixie" # Check that https://packages.debian.org/trixie/g++-mingw-w64-x86-64-posix (version 13.2, similar to guix) can cross-compile
Wondering if it’s just sporadic, given previous pushes passed, i.e https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5429980706897920, and it’s doesn’t look like much has changed upstream recently. Will push again soonish.
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Jun 11, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Jun 12, 2024
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Jun 12, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Jun 26, 2024
in
ci/test/00_setup_env_arm.sh:20
in
a5f361c5e5outdated
16 export RUN_UNIT_TESTS=true
17 export RUN_FUNCTIONAL_TESTS=false
18 export GOAL="install"
19 # -Wno-psabi is to disable ABI warnings: "note: parameter passing for argument of type ... changed in GCC 7.1"
20 # This could be removed once the ABI change warning does not show up by default
21-export BITCOIN_CONFIG="--enable-reduce-exports CXXFLAGS='-Wno-psabi -Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized'"
DrahtBot removed the label
DrahtBot Guix build requested
on Jul 26, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Jul 29, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Jul 31, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Aug 6, 2024
hebasto added the label
Needs CMake port
on Aug 16, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Aug 23, 2024
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Aug 28, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Aug 28, 2024
fanquake removed the label
Needs CMake port
on Aug 28, 2024
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Aug 28, 2024
DrahtBot added the label
Needs rebase
on Aug 30, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Aug 30, 2024
DrahtBot removed the label
Needs rebase
on Aug 30, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Aug 30, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Sep 2, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Sep 5, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Sep 12, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Sep 19, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Sep 26, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Oct 2, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Oct 9, 2024
maflcko
commented at 8:46 am on October 10, 2024:
member
What is the status/expectation of this? I presume at some point the switch will happen either way and right now it is just waiting for a good enough reason?
fanquake renamed this:
guix: use GCC 13 to builds releases
guix: use GCC 13 to build releases
on Oct 10, 2024
fanquake
commented at 8:54 am on October 10, 2024:
member
What is the status/expectation of this? I presume at some point the switch will happen either way and right now it is just waiting for a good enough reason?
The status is mostly that. It has been useful to push occasionally and see what breaks. If there are some new compelling reasons to switch we could consider it. I’ll take it out of draft, and if anyone wants to leave (conceptual) review they can.
fanquake marked this as ready for review
on Oct 10, 2024
fanquake force-pushed
on Oct 10, 2024
hebasto
commented at 12:49 pm on October 11, 2024:
member
This is a metadata mirror of the GitHub repository
bitcoin/bitcoin.
This site is not affiliated with GitHub.
Content is generated from a GitHub metadata backup.
generated: 2024-12-25 18:12 UTC
This site is hosted by @0xB10C More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me