uint256 cxx-20 constexpr patch #32663

1. 
   RandyMcMillan commented at 4:05 pm on June 2, 2025: contributor
2. 
   DrahtBot commented at 4:05 pm on June 2, 2025: 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/32663.

   Reviews

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

3. RandyMcMillan marked this as a draft on Jun 2, 2025
4. RandyMcMillan marked this as ready for review on Jun 2, 2025
5. 
   fanquake commented at 4:47 pm on June 2, 2025: member

   Was this opened by accident?
6. fanquake marked this as a draft on Jun 2, 2025
7. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Jun 2, 2025
8. 
   DrahtBot commented at 5:24 pm on June 2, 2025: contributor

   🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Task fuzzer,address,undefined,integer, no depends: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/43320531305 LLM reason (✨ experimental): The CI failure is caused by compilation errors due to ambiguous constructor calls in uint256.cpp.

   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.

9. uint256 cxx-20 constexpr patch 5500c70d1c
10. RandyMcMillan force-pushed on Jun 2, 2025
11. test:uint256 cxx-20 constexpr patches 82f8575ece
12. 
    maflcko commented at 5:20 am on June 3, 2025: member

    Closing for now. Looks like this was opened by accident.
13. maflcko closed this on Jun 3, 2025

    ---

14. 
    RandyMcMillan commented at 3:29 pm on June 4, 2025: contributor

    @hebasto,

    I would suggest adding tests to the MacOS cross compile and/or actually building for MacOS x86_64. This PR actually enables compiling with:

    0$ clang -v
    1Apple clang version 14.0.3 (clang-1403.0.22.14.1)
    2Target: x86_64-apple-darwin22.6.0
    3Thread model: posix
    4InstalledDir: /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr/bin
    

    

    ---

    If you are confident NO OTHER BUGS are getting into the MacOS x86_64 build then keep doing what you are doing.

    If you are confident NO OTHER BUGS are getting into the MacOS x86_64 build then keep doing what you are doing.

    If you are confident NO OTHER BUGS are getting into the MacOS x86_64 build then keep doing what you are doing.

    ---

15. 
    fanquake commented at 3:33 pm on June 4, 2025: member

    This PR actually enables compiling with: Apple clang version 14.0.3 (clang-1403.0.22.14.1)

    Apple Clang 14.x is based on LLVM Clang 15. We currently support Clang 16 or later.

16. 
    RandyMcMillan commented at 3:33 pm on June 4, 2025: contributor

    https://github.com/bitcoincore-dev/bitcoin/tree/1944/899512/227275/515514a4e6/7c6d5aa000-uint256-cxx-20-constexpr-patch
17. 
    RandyMcMillan commented at 3:36 pm on June 4, 2025: contributor

    This PR actually enables compiling with: Apple clang version 14.0.3 (clang-1403.0.22.14.1)

    Apple Clang 14.x is based on LLVM Clang 15. We currently support Clang 16 or later.

    I suggest “trusting LLVM less”

18. 
    maflcko commented at 12:22 pm on June 5, 2025: member

    see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/ae024137bda9fe189f4e7ccf26dbaffd44cbbeb6/.github/workflows/ci.yml#L121-L128

Contributors
RandyMcMillan DrahtBot fanquake maflcko

Labels
CI failed