Skip to content

ci: Downgrade DEBUG=1 to -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS in centos task #32586

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 22, 2025

Conversation

maflcko
Copy link
Member

@maflcko maflcko commented May 22, 2025

to work around #32524 (comment)

closes #32524

@DrahtBot
Copy link
Contributor

DrahtBot commented May 22, 2025

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/32586.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type Reviewers
ACK laanwj, fanquake

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:

  • #31802 (Add bitcoin-{node,gui} to release binaries for IPC by Sjors)

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 DrahtBot added the Tests label May 22, 2025
@maflcko maflcko force-pushed the 2505-ci-centos-debug branch from a476e94 to fa07953 Compare May 22, 2025 11:50
Copy link
Member

@laanwj laanwj left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK fa07953

@fanquake
Copy link
Member

Not sure; now we wouldn't have any (non-msan, non-32 bit task) CI using DEBUG=1? It'd at least be good to note in the CI config, why this is being changed this way / when it could be removed.

@maflcko
Copy link
Member Author

maflcko commented May 22, 2025

Not sure; now we wouldn't have any (non-msan, non-32 bit task) CI using DEBUG=1? It'd at least be good to note in the CI config, why this is being changed this way / when it could be removed.

Of course there is no right or wrong answer here, but I'd say that the libc++ debug build (msan) and glibc++ debug build (32-bit) are probably enough and redundant with this one anyway, so one could even fully remove the debug setting here. (Also, there is other, possibly more important stuff, only run in nightly CIs outside this repo, including a full gcc debug run, so based on that it should also be fine)

@laanwj
Copy link
Member

laanwj commented May 22, 2025

Not sure; now we wouldn't have any (non-msan, non-32 bit task) CI using DEBUG=1? It'd at least be good to note in the CI config, why this is being changed this way / when it could be removed.

In the short term, getting the CI to pass reliably again is most important imo. Adding another DEBUG run can always be considered, but shouldn't come at the cost of CI flakiness.

Copy link
Member

@fanquake fanquake left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

ACK fa07953 - we can followup

@fanquake fanquake merged commit 2df824f into bitcoin:master May 22, 2025
19 checks passed
@maflcko maflcko deleted the 2505-ci-centos-debug branch May 23, 2025 06:41
@maflcko
Copy link
Member Author

maflcko commented May 23, 2025

(edited a prior comment of mine, which said there are two libc++ debug runs in the CI. In reality there is the libc++ debug build (msan) and the glibc++ debug build (32-bit).)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

intermittent issue in rpc_signer.py (enumeratesigners timeout) under GLIBCXX debug mode
4 participants