Add multiprocess binaries to release build #30975

pull Sjors wants to merge 3 commits into bitcoin:master from Sjors:2024/09/multiprocess-guix changing 16 files +71 −36
  1. Sjors commented at 10:29 am on September 26, 2024: member

    This changes the depends system to build libmultiprocess by default. As a result Guix builds now add bitcoin-node and bitcoin-gui to the release binaries. See #30983 for a discussion of variations on this approach.

    Combined with various changes enumerated in #31098 this makes it feasible to implement a Stratum v2 Template Provider (or something similar) as an external tool that communicates with the node via IPC.

    A complete implementation can be seen in https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/pull/48. That implementation builds on top of the Bitcoin Core codebase, but a Template Provider could also be built in Rust from the ground up. Or as a standalone c++ application that uses a library we (might, one day) expose.

    IIUC the regular bitcoind, bitcoin-qt, etc binaries are not affected by this change.

    It may be useful to also merge #30437 and document its usage.

    bitcoin-gui could be omitted, but that doesn’t seem worth complicating the build system.

    ci/test/00_setup_env_i686_multiprocess.sh is flipped to no_multiprocess.

    TODO:

    Followups:

    A previous version of this PR changed the Guix build rather than the depends.

  2. DrahtBot commented at 10:29 am on September 26, 2024: contributor

    The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

    Code Coverage & Benchmarks

    For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/30975.

    Reviews

    See the guideline for information on the review process. A summary of reviews will appear here.

    Conflicts

    Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

    • #31424 (build: enable libc++ and libstdc++ hardening by vasild)
    • #31375 (multiprocess: Add bitcoin wrapper executable by ryanofsky)
    • #31282 (refactor: Make node_id a const& in RemoveBlockRequest by maflcko)
    • #30997 (build: Switch to Qt 6 by hebasto)
    • #28710 (Remove the legacy wallet and BDB dependency by achow101)

    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.

  3. DrahtBot added the label Build system on Sep 26, 2024
  4. in contrib/guix/libexec/build.sh:178 in 8b2546c35d outdated 
    174@@ -171,6 +175,7 @@ make -C depends --jobs="$JOBS" HOST="$HOST" \
175                                    ${SOURCES_PATH+SOURCES_PATH="$SOURCES_PATH"} \
176                                    ${BASE_CACHE+BASE_CACHE="$BASE_CACHE"} \
177                                    ${SDK_PATH+SDK_PATH="$SDK_PATH"} \
178+                                   ${MAYBE_MULTIPROCESS} \
    Sjors commented at 10:31 am on September 26, 2024:
    8b2546c35de37ea15aa7e22865943747b3006b61: it turns out that doing make MULTIPROCESS=0 in depends causes libmultiprocess to be built anyway. Not sure if that’s a known behavior or a cmake regression. cc @hebasto
    hebasto commented at 10:52 am on September 26, 2024:

    8b2546c: it turns out that doing make MULTIPROCESS=0 in depends causes libmultiprocess to be built anyway.

    Yes, any non-empty value is considered “set/enabled”:https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/e13da501db9e123ec56adfcb6f01b811445f9ce7/depends/Makefile#L165

    Not sure if that’s a known behavior or a cmake regression. cc @hebasto

    Definitely, not the latter.

  5. Sjors commented at 10:34 am on September 26, 2024: member
    I’ll look into the linter once it’s clear if the make MULTIPROCESS=0 behaviour above is intentional.
  6. fanquake commented at 11:22 am on September 26, 2024: member

    If multiprocess is (currently) unsupported on Windows, then that should be fixed in depends, i.e (for now) don’t even try building the packages/functionality for that platform, not leaked into Guix with a workaround.

    More generally, if the project decides to start shipping multiprocess as part of it’s releases, then there’s a number of other things that need to happen first. We should be switching multiprocess from an opt-in in depends, to being built/used by default, as well as testing all of this, on all relevant platforms in our CIs, not just enabling it for some platforms as part of the release process.

    There are also documentation/website/release process updates that will be needed, as this change is going to produce a release tarball, which will contain:

    0bitcoin-cli
1bitcoin-gui
2bitcoin-node
3bitcoin-qt
4bitcoin-tx
5bitcoin-util
6bitcoin-wallet
7bitcoind
8test_bitcoin

    with no explanation of why there is bitcoind & bitcoin-node, as well as bitcoin-qt & bitcoin-gui, what the difference is betweem them, or which one someone should use. I’d think that even if we started doing multiprocess, we should still only be shipping a bitcoind and bitcoin-qt (which contain the functionality, not multiple different binaries).

    and as a result add bitcoin-node, bitcoin-gui and bitcoin-wallet to the release binaries.

    bitcoin-wallet already exists in the release binaries:

    0ls bitcoin-28.0rc2/bin 
1bitcoin-cli
2bitcoin-qt
3bitcoin-tx
4bitcoin-util
5bitcoin-wallet
6bitcoind
7test_bitcoin
  7. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Sep 26, 2024
  8. DrahtBot commented at 11:43 am on September 26, 2024: contributor

    🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Debug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/30698173359

    Make sure to run all tests locally, according to the documentation.

    The failure may happen due to a number of reasons, for example:

    • Possibly 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.

    • A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.

    • An intermittent issue.

    Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.

  9. Sjors commented at 12:23 pm on September 26, 2024: member

    I would also prefer it if bitcoind (and bitcoin-qt) had multiprocess built in. That way the instruction for miners is “Install Bitcoin Core as you always do, just add ipcbind=unix to you config”. cc @ryanofsky

    Another approach, if touching the bitcoind and bitcoin-qt binaries is something people are worried about doing too soon, is to move bitcoin-node and bitcoin-qt into an ipc folder. A document explaining all the different binaries would still be needed.

    that should be fixed in depends, i.e (for now) don’t even try building the packages/functionality for that platform, not leaked into Guix with a workaround.

    I’ll look into that.

    there’s a number of other things that need to happen first. We should be switching multiprocess from an opt-in in depends, to being built/used by default, as well as testing all of this, on all relevant platforms in our CIs, not just enabling it for some platforms as part of the release process.

    I’ll add some commits here to do these things. Those can be split into separate PRs later for a more incremental approach.

    bitcoin-wallet already exists in the release binaries:

    Ah, I either misremembered or things changed. But in #19460 it’s not / no longer the plan to have bitcoin-node spawn a bitcoin-wallet process. Updated the description.

  10. ryanofsky commented at 12:37 pm on September 26, 2024: contributor
    It’s good to have this PR open as a draft to see what it looks like but it sounds like there are a number of followups that need to happen for it to be ready. For my part, I need to fix the windows build and also open an issue listing different ways it would be possible to make releases including multiprocess support in short or long term. It would also be good to review and merge #30940 which this is currently based on.
  11. Sjors force-pushed on Sep 26, 2024
  12. Sjors commented at 3:40 pm on September 26, 2024: member

    I moved the Windows build skip workaround from Guix to depends. This made me excited about the prospect of moving that bit of Autotools stuff to CMake as well. :-)

    Made some minimal documentation changes.

    I didn’t change the non-depends build (yet).

    All CI instances that use depends now use multiprocess, the others don’t (yet). Let’s see if that breaks anything…

  13. Sjors renamed this:
    guix: add multiprocess binaries
    Add multiprocess binaries to release build
    on Sep 26, 2024
  14. maflcko commented at 4:52 pm on September 26, 2024: member

    From CI:

    0SUMMARY: MemorySanitizer: use-of-uninitialized-value /usr/src/mp/proxy.cpp:146:25 in mp::Connection::addAsyncCleanup(std::__1::function<void ()>)
  15. ryanofsky commented at 7:46 pm on September 26, 2024: contributor

    For my part, I need to fix the windows build and also open an issue listing different ways it would be possible to make releases including multiprocess support in short or long term.

    Update: currently working on getting mingw32 build working, and I created issue #30983 to lay out different multiprocess release options.

  16. fanquake commented at 9:26 am on September 27, 2024: member 
     0ci_container_base/src/ipc/capnp/mining.cpp -DARENA_DEBUG -DDEBUG_LOCKORDER -DDEBUG_LOCKCONTENTION -D_LIBCPP_REMOVE_TRANSITIVE_INCLUDES 
 1In file included from /ci_container_base/src/ipc/capnp/mining.cpp:5:
 2In file included from /ci_container_base/src/ipc/capnp/mining-types.h:9:
 3In file included from /ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/src/ipc/capnp/common.capnp.proxy-types.h:6:
 4In file included from /ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/src/ipc/capnp/common.capnp.proxy.h:7:
 5In file included from /ci_container_base/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/mp/proxy.h:8:
 6/ci_container_base/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/mp/util.h:207:20: error: no template named 'function' in namespace 'std'; did you mean 'kj::Function'?
 7  207 | using FdToArgsFn = std::function<std::vector<std::string>(int fd)>;
 8      |                    ^~~~~
 9/ci_container_base/depends/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/include/kj/exception.h:34:29: note: 'kj::Function' declared here
10   34 | template <typename T> class Function;
11      |                             ^
121 error generated.

    TSAN compile failure fixed in https://github.com/chaincodelabs/libmultiprocess/pull/113.

  17. DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Sep 27, 2024
  18. Sjors force-pushed on Sep 27, 2024
  19. Sjors commented at 11:00 am on September 27, 2024: member
    Rebased after #30940
  20. DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Sep 27, 2024
  21. DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Sep 30, 2024
  22. Sjors force-pushed on Oct 1, 2024
  23. DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Oct 1, 2024
  24. Sjors force-pushed on Oct 1, 2024
  25. Sjors commented at 7:50 am on October 1, 2024: member

    Rebased after #30043.

    TSAN compile failure fixed in chaincodelabs/libmultiprocess#113.

    Added a commit to bump libmultiprocess to include this (can be its own PR later).

  26. Sjors commented at 11:01 am on October 1, 2024: member

    MSAN says https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6248232848719872:

    0SUMMARY: MemorySanitizer: use-of-uninitialized-value /usr/src/mp/proxy.cpp:146:25 in mp::Connection::addAsyncCleanup(std::__1::function<void ()>)
1[10:00:27.923] Exiting
  27. ryanofsky commented at 2:58 pm on October 1, 2024: contributor

    MSAN says https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6248232848719872

    Thanks! I created https://github.com/chaincodelabs/libmultiprocess/issues/115 with details about this, and I think I have a potential fix.

  28. ryanofsky commented at 4:42 pm on October 1, 2024: contributor
    Could you try cherry-picking following commit to fix the MSAN failure? commit 7363a3eb8a1771b862febf3bd7257ad093887485 (branch)
  29. Sjors force-pushed on Oct 1, 2024
  30. DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Oct 1, 2024
  31. Sjors commented at 7:15 am on October 2, 2024: member
    @ryanofsky that worked!
  32. in src/test/ipc_test.cpp:65 in 03e8fe41c3 outdated 
    61@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ void IpcPipeTest()
62 
63         auto connection_client = std::make_unique<mp::Connection>(loop, kj::mv(pipe.ends[0]));
64         auto foo_client = std::make_unique<mp::ProxyClient<gen::FooInterface>>(
65-            connection_client->m_rpc_system.bootstrap(mp::ServerVatId().vat_id).castAs<gen::FooInterface>(),
66+            connection_client->m_rpc_system->bootstrap(mp::ServerVatId().vat_id).castAs<gen::FooInterface>(),
    Sjors commented at 6:11 pm on October 4, 2024:
    03e8fe41c3500c29cd003170f7346872227f3ca5: @ryanofsky now that this breaking change is merged in libmultiprocess it would be good to have a PR to apply this on master.
  33. Sjors force-pushed on Oct 5, 2024
  34. Sjors commented at 12:30 pm on October 5, 2024: member

    Added a commit to enable multiprocess on more CI environments.

    Tidy fails with: https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4938161187454976

    0[12:32:04.351] CMake Error at src/ipc/CMakeLists.txt:12 (target_capnp_sources):
1[12:32:04.351]   Unknown CMake command "target_capnp_sources".

    That makes sense; I’ll have to actually install capnp and multiprocess on the non-depends CI jobs.

  35. DrahtBot commented at 3:02 pm on October 5, 2024: contributor

    🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Debug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/31118275242

    Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still happen due to a number of reasons, for example:

    • Possibly 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.

    • A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.

    • An intermittent issue.

    Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.

  36. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Oct 5, 2024
  37. Sjors commented at 9:26 am on October 7, 2024: member
    I dropped 1ea75505d18eea8e5f00f08d1e9e5b348691c7c0 again and instead opened https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/pull/65 to figure out how to best enable multiprocess on non-depends CI. It seems rather non-trivial.
  38. Sjors force-pushed on Oct 7, 2024
  39. Sjors force-pushed on Oct 7, 2024
  40. DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Oct 7, 2024
  41. DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Oct 21, 2024
  42. fanquake commented at 10:22 am on October 21, 2024: member
    See cb3d8038b61440dff10316afd238603bd9f60924 for how I’d rework e76fdae837cea1384ea7fff231dd54ec5fbb0b19. Note that the _multiprocess suffix could be dropped from the i686 job, however, we should have atleast one job building with NO_MULTIPROCESS, so maybe that could be reused for that with _no_multiprocess.
  43. Sjors commented at 3:07 pm on October 21, 2024: member
    @fanquake thanks, I’ll look into that along with a rebase - might be after TABConf.
  44. Sjors force-pushed on Nov 10, 2024
  45. Sjors force-pushed on Nov 10, 2024
  46. Sjors commented at 7:35 pm on November 10, 2024: member
    @fanquake done and rebased after #31105.
  47. Sjors commented at 8:19 pm on November 10, 2024: member

    It looks like the no multiprocess, i686, DEBUG functional tests are still trying to check multiprocess stuff despite NO_MULTIPROCESS=1.

    FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: ‘bitcoin-node’

    https://cirrus-ci.com/task/6626990688567296

    I forgot to adjust export BITCOIND=bitcoin-node. Do we want to use that for all builds, or just a few?

  48. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Nov 10, 2024
  49. Sjors force-pushed on Nov 10, 2024
  50. Sjors commented at 8:37 pm on November 10, 2024: member
    I set export BITCOIND=bitcoin-node just for the ARM job for now.
  51. DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Nov 10, 2024
  52. DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Nov 10, 2024
  53. Sjors force-pushed on Nov 14, 2024
  54. Sjors commented at 3:56 pm on November 14, 2024: member
    I pulled in the changes from https://github.com/Sjors/bitcoin/pull/65 to enable multiprocess for non-depends builds. But I disabled it for two jobs, see TODO in PR description.
  55. Sjors force-pushed on Nov 14, 2024
  56. DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Nov 14, 2024
  57. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Nov 14, 2024
  58. DrahtBot commented at 7:12 pm on November 14, 2024: contributor

    🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Debug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/32995736139

    Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still happen due to a number of reasons, for example:

    • Possibly 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.

    • A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.

    • An intermittent issue.

    Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.

  59. Sjors force-pushed on Nov 18, 2024
  60. Sjors commented at 11:34 am on November 18, 2024: member

    I disabled ARM and macOS-cross as well, added a link to their failures to PR description TODO. These failures are all over my head, so will wait for someone else to figure them out…

    I think the p2p_i2p_ports.py failure in the previous releases job is spurious, so leaving that job in.

  61. Sjors force-pushed on Nov 18, 2024
  62. DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Nov 18, 2024
  63. DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Nov 18, 2024
  64. hebasto commented at 3:34 pm on November 18, 2024: member

    TODO:

    • fix arm-linux-gnueabihf-g++: error: unrecognized command-line option ‘-mpclmul’ failure and re-enable multiprocess for arm job

    I don’t think the problem description is correct.

    In my opinion, the root of the issue is:

    0$ make --no-print-directory -C depends HOST=arm-linux-gnueabihf print-multiprocess_packages
1multiprocess_packages=
  65. Sjors commented at 10:29 am on November 19, 2024: member
    @hebasto I don’t understand.
  66. hebasto commented at 10:42 am on November 19, 2024: member

    @hebasto I don’t understand.

    make -C depends HOST=arm-linux-gnueabihf does not build the libmultiprocess package.

  67. Sjors commented at 11:03 am on November 19, 2024: member

    multiprocess_packages= seems to be empty for all hosts. It turns out the first commit isn’t actually working, as I can confirm locally.

    Given that the arm job uses depends, it was incorrect to set BITCOIN_CONFIG=-DWITH_MULTIPROCESS=ON. It should simply follow what depends sets. I’ll fix that in the next push.

    I dropped the arm todo.

  68. in depends/Makefile:161 in 57d1a7683f outdated 
    156@@ -157,21 +157,19 @@ sqlite_packages_$(NO_SQLITE) = $(sqlite_packages)
157 wallet_packages_$(NO_WALLET) = $(bdb_packages_) $(sqlite_packages_)
158 
159 zmq_packages_$(NO_ZMQ) = $(zmq_packages)
160-multiprocess_packages_$(MULTIPROCESS) = $(multiprocess_packages)
161+
162+multiprocess_packages_$(NO_MULTIPROCESS) = $(multiprocess_packages)
    Sjors commented at 11:26 am on November 19, 2024:
    This was missing $(host_os)_
  69. Sjors force-pushed on Nov 19, 2024
  70. Sjors commented at 11:46 am on November 19, 2024: member

    I wrote:

    I set export BITCOIND=bitcoin-node just for the ARM job for now.

    I think it should be enough to do this for one depends job and one non-depends job. I’ll adjust that later.

    Update 2024-11-22: I picked macOS native

  71. DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Nov 21, 2024
  72. Sjors force-pushed on Nov 21, 2024
  73. Sjors commented at 2:34 pm on November 21, 2024: member
    Rebased after fe3457c.
  74. DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Nov 21, 2024
  75. in ci/test/00_setup_env_mac_cross.sh:21 in 43799716d9 outdated 
    16@@ -17,4 +17,8 @@ export XCODE_BUILD_ID=15A240d
17 export RUN_UNIT_TESTS=false
18 export RUN_FUNCTIONAL_TESTS=false
19 export GOAL="deploy"
20-export BITCOIN_CONFIG="-DBUILD_GUI=ON -DREDUCE_EXPORTS=ON"
21+export BITCOIN_CONFIG="\
22+-DWITH_MULTIPROCESS=OFF \
    hebasto commented at 7:52 pm on November 21, 2024:

    TODO:

    • fix unknown target CPU 'armv8-a+crc+crypto' failure and re-enable macOS cross

    Similar to #30975 (comment), I do think that -DWITH_MULTIPROCESS=OFF can be dropped now as depends are fixed.

    Sjors commented at 8:38 am on November 22, 2024:
    Good catch, pushed…
  76. Sjors force-pushed on Nov 22, 2024
  77. Sjors force-pushed on Nov 22, 2024
  78. Sjors commented at 8:56 am on November 22, 2024: member

    I re-enabled multiprocess for two more depends build machines: macOS cross and centos. Let’s see how those go.

    I also enabled it for the native fuzz with valgrind job and the native valgrind job, let’s see how that goes.

    For all non-depends builds I now explicitly set -DWITH_MULTIPROCESS to either ON or OFF for clarity.

    I also moved a few things that were in the wrong commit.

  79. Sjors force-pushed on Nov 22, 2024
  80. Sjors commented at 10:28 am on November 22, 2024: member

    Added a commit to enable the native_asan and native_valgrind jobs, to get a more update to date log.

    CI / ASan + LSan + UBsan log: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/11970857809/job/33374462331?pr=30975

  81. Sjors commented at 12:10 pm on November 22, 2024: member
    Well that’s nice, looks like only the ASan + LSan + UBsan job is failing.
  82. DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Dec 2, 2024
  83. Sjors force-pushed on Dec 2, 2024
  84. Sjors commented at 10:53 am on December 2, 2024: member

    Trivial rebase after #31399.

    I disabled ASan + LSan + UBsan again, see previous failure log: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/11970857809/job/33374462331?pr=30975

    (this drops fda0d98237b4a82a94a5672f6bd263bca04adf35 and adjusts 0b5c84bc988e600484012f43df0e9950e7c444f5 to enable multiprocess for ci/test/00_setup_env_native_valgrind.sh)

  85. DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Dec 2, 2024
  86. ryanofsky referenced this in commit 5b81192847 on Dec 2, 2024
  87. ryanofsky commented at 5:17 pm on December 2, 2024: contributor

    I disabled ASan + LSan + UBsan again, see previous failure log: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/11970857809/job/33374462331?pr=30975

    I think https://github.com/chaincodelabs/libmultiprocess/pull/121 should fix this, but I want to test the fix a little more and it will require another depends bump like 90b405516f7f3be522ced3e0c4d23b3892df0661 to fix the problem in CI.

    If there are more bugs feel free to post to https://github.com/chaincodelabs/libmultiprocess/issues/new or just ping me.

  88. Sjors commented at 7:28 pm on December 2, 2024: member
    @ryanofsky that one and https://github.com/chaincodelabs/libmultiprocess/issues/122 are the only two I’m aware of at the moment.
  89. DrahtBot added the label Needs rebase on Dec 8, 2024
  90. Sjors force-pushed on Dec 9, 2024
  91. DrahtBot removed the label Needs rebase on Dec 9, 2024
  92. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Dec 9, 2024
  93. DrahtBot commented at 4:10 am on December 9, 2024: contributor

    🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Debug: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/34105951022

    Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still happen due to a number of reasons, for example:

    • Possibly 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.

    • A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.

    • An intermittent issue.

    Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.

  94. Sjors commented at 6:03 am on December 9, 2024: member
    Rebased, opened https://github.com/chaincodelabs/libmultiprocess/issues/124
  95. hebasto commented at 10:28 am on December 12, 2024: member

    Rebased, opened chaincodelabs/libmultiprocess#124

    Fixed in #31480.

  96. ryanofsky referenced this in commit beac62e541 on Dec 12, 2024
  97. build: depends makes libmultiprocess by default 
    Except for Windows.

Co-Authored-By: fanquake <fanquake@gmail.com>
    a48d4c8e27
  98. ci: install libmultiprocess for non-depends 73d1d099a0
  99. ci: enable multiprocess for non-depends jobs 
    It's left disabled for the test each commit job.

The bitcoin-node binary is built on all platforms which have
multiprocess enabled, but for functional tests it's only used in
the macOS native job.

TODO:
* ASAN
    f14af0b51d
  100. Sjors force-pushed on Dec 13, 2024
  101. Sjors commented at 3:39 am on December 13, 2024: member

    Rebased after #31480, hopefully Tidy succeeds! (narrator: it did)

    Updated PR description to track the two remaining CI crash.

    I’ll track https://github.com/chaincodelabs/libmultiprocess/issues/122 separately in #31098.

  102. DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Dec 13, 2024


Sjors DrahtBot hebasto fanquake ryanofsky maflcko

Labels
Build system

github-metadata-mirror

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: 2024-12-30 15:12 UTC
This site is hosted by @0xB10C
More mirrored repositories can be found on mirror.b10c.me