If your review is incorrectly listed, please react with 👎 to this comment and the bot will ignore it on the next update.
<!--174a7506f384e20aa4161008e828411d-->
Conflicts
Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
#30595 (kernel: Introduce initial C header API by TheCharlatan)
#25573 ([POC] guix: produce a fully -static-pie bitcoind by fanquake)
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.
torcontrol.cpp: In static member function ‘static void TorControlConnection::readcb(bufferevent*, void*)’:
torcontrol.cpp:94:28: error: ‘result’ may be used uninitialized [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
94 | self->message.code = ToIntegral<int>(s.substr(0, 3)).value_or(0);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from ./netaddress.h:14,
from ./torcontrol.h:11,
from torcontrol.cpp:6:
./util/strencodings.h:184:7: note: ‘result’ was declared here
184 | T result;
| ^~~~~~
cc1plus: all warnings being treated as errors
make[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
<!--85328a0da195eb286784d51f73fa0af9-->
🚧 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
<!--85328a0da195eb286784d51f73fa0af9-->
🚧 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.
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
Is there any insurance that debian won't bump this to gcc 14 as well? Seems better to stick to 13.2, than to silently go to 14?
fanquake
commented at 5:19 PM on January 20, 2025:
I was thinking this might also be needed if we want to test the newer runtime in future, but given that isn't happening yet, will just return this to nobel.
in
ci/test/00_setup_env_arm.sh:13
in
87973e5e47outdated
9 | @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ export HOST=arm-linux-gnueabihf
10 | export DPKG_ADD_ARCH="armhf"
11 | export PACKAGES="python3-zmq g++-arm-linux-gnueabihf busybox libc6:armhf libstdc++6:armhf libfontconfig1:armhf libxcb1:armhf"
12 | export CONTAINER_NAME=ci_arm_linux
13 | -export CI_IMAGE_NAME_TAG="docker.io/debian:bookworm" # Check that https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/g++-arm-linux-gnueabihf (version 12.2, similar to guix) can cross-compile 14 | +export CI_IMAGE_NAME_TAG="docker.io/ubuntu:noble" # Check that https://packages.ubuntu.com/noble/g++-arm-linux-gnueabihf (version 13.2, similar to guix) can cross-compile
fanquake
commented at 5:13 PM on January 20, 2025:
export CI_IMAGE_NAME_TAG="docker.io/ubuntu:noble" # Check that https://packages.ubuntu.com/noble/g++-arm-linux-gnueabihf (version 13.2, similar to guix) can cross-compile
fanquake
commented at 5:05 PM on January 22, 2025:
Are you sure:
arm-linux-gnueabihf-g++ --version
arm-linux-gnueabihf-g++ (Ubuntu 13.3.0-6ubuntu2~24.04) 13.3.0
Copyright (C) 2023 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
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: 2026-05-02 18:13 UTC
This site is hosted by @0xB10C More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me