Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit #32998

ajtowns · 2025-07-16T22:58:08Z

We currently use 21 of 32 possible bits for SCRIPT_VERIFY_* flags, with open PRs that may use 8 more (#29247, #31989, #32247, #32453). The mutinynet fork that has included many experimental soft fork features is already reusing bits here. Therefore, bump this to 64 bits.

In order to make it easier to update this logic in future, this PR also introduces a dedicated type for the script flags, and disables implicit conversion between that type and the underlying integer type. To make verifying that this change doesn't cause flags to disappear, this PR also resurrects the changes from #28806 so that the script flags that are consensus enforced on each block can be queried via getdeploymentinfo.

DrahtBot · 2025-07-16T22:58:12Z

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/32998.

Reviews

See the guideline for information on the review process.

Type	Reviewers
Concept ACK	darosior

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:

#32575 (refactor: Split multithreaded case out of CheckInputScripts by fjahr)
#32453 ([Policy] Discourage Unsigned Annexes by JeremyRubin)
#32317 (kernel: Separate UTXO set access from validation functions by TheCharlatan)
#31989 (BIP-119 (OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY) (regtest only) by jamesob)
#29843 (policy: Allow non-standard scripts with -acceptnonstdtxn=1 (test nets only) by ajtowns)
#29247 (CAT in Tapscript (BIP-347) by arminsabouri)

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.

ajtowns · 2025-07-16T22:59:35Z

The "introduce script_verify_flags typename" commit is probably best reviewed with --word-diff fwiw.

cc @instagibbs @darosior @benthecarman

DrahtBot · 2025-07-16T23:01:50Z

🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed.
_{Task lint: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/runs/46136681380}
_{LLM reason (✨ experimental): Lint failure caused by missing include guard in src/script/verify_flags.h.}

Hints

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.

ajtowns · 2025-07-17T01:00:33Z

CI failure seems to be due to a bug in qt6 6.4:

Also for people coming here from Google: I had the same error message, but for me the problem was that I was using Qt 6.4.2 which apparently thinks that #if 202002L < 201103L is true, which causes c++config.h to not be included (and no #error is generated because moc doesn't support the directive) . This has been fixed somewhere before Qt 6.7.3.

[20:04:17.396] Get:287 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu noble/universe amd64 qt6-base-dev-tools amd64 6.4.2+dfsg-21.1build5 [970 kB]
[20:04:17.414] Get:288 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu noble/universe amd64 qt6-qpa-plugins amd64 6.4.2+dfsg-21.1build5 [89.3 kB]
[20:04:17.417] Get:289 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu noble/universe amd64 qt6-base-dev amd64 6.4.2+dfsg-21.1build5 [1458 kB]
...
[20:12:02.187] Command
[20:12:02.187] -------
[20:12:02.187] /usr/lib/qt6/libexec/moc -DBOOST_MULTI_INDEX_DISABLE_SERIALIZATION -DBOOST_NO_CXX98_FUNCTION_BASE -DQT_CORE_LIB -DQT_DBUS_LIB -DQT_GUI_LIB -DQT_NETWORK_LIB -DQT_NO_DEBUG -DQT_NO_KEYWORDS -DQT_USE_QSTRINGBUILDER -DQT_WIDGETS_LIB -I/ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/src -I/ci_container_base/src -I/ci_container_base/src/univalue/include -I/ci_container_base/src/leveldb/include -I/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt6/QtWidgets -I/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt6 -I/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt6/QtCore -I/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt6/mkspecs/linux-g++ -I/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt6/QtGui -I/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt6/QtNetwork -I/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt6/QtDBus -I/usr/include -I/usr/include/c++/13 -I/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu/c++/13 -I/usr/include/c++/13/backward -I/usr/lib/llvm-20/lib/clang/20/include -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/include/x86_64-linux-gnu --include /ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/src/qt/bitcoinqt_autogen/moc_predefs.h -p/ci_container_base/src/qt --output-dep-file -o /ci_container_base/ci/scratch/build-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/src/qt/bitcoinqt_autogen/include/qt/intro.moc /ci_container_base/src/qt/intro.cpp
[20:12:02.187] 
[20:12:02.187] Output
[20:12:02.187] ------
[20:12:02.187] usr/include/c++/13/concept:46:1: error: Parse error at "std"

The error output also seems to be cutting off the last letter of the filename ("concept" vs "concepts" here, and "stl_relops." vs "stl_relops.h" in the original bug report linked above).

hebasto · 2025-07-17T13:21:29Z

CI failure seems to be due to a bug in qt6 6.4:

Although both failed CI job use Clang 20.1.7, the error can also be reproduced with GCC 13.3.

instagibbs · 2025-07-17T13:31:07Z

agreed, build issue also on my end with gcc 13.3.0

fanquake · 2025-07-17T13:43:37Z

Minified this is:

# podman run -it ubuntu:noble

apt update && apt upgrade -y
apt install g++ qt6-base-dev qt6-tools-dev git

git clone https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin
cd bitcoin
git fetch origin pull/32998/head:32998
git checkout 32998

/usr/lib/qt6/libexec/moc -I/usr/include/c++/13 --output-dep-file -o test.moc /bitcoin/src/qt/intro.cpp
usr/include/c++/13/bits/cpp_type_traits.:69:1: error: Parse error at "std"

hebasto · 2025-07-17T13:48:12Z

CI failure seems to be due to a bug in qt6 6.4:

Although both failed CI job use Clang 20.1.7, the error can also be reproduced with GCC 13.3.

Refactoring helps.

ajtowns · 2025-07-19T05:37:25Z

Minified this is:

I don't think you need the git fetch; git checkout here -- you get the same error with that command (dropping the /bitcoin) on master afaics?

fanquake · 2025-07-26T09:44:40Z

@hebasto how can we move past the GUI build failures here? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/16538448423/job/46776353144?pr=32998#step:6:3769.

hebasto · 2025-07-26T10:14:19Z

@hebasto how can we move past the GUI build failures here? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/16538448423/job/46776353144?pr=32998#step:6:3769.

Sure!

CI failure seems to be due to a bug in qt6 6.4:

Although both failed CI job use Clang 20.1.7, the error can also be reproduced with GCC 13.3.

Refactoring helps.

Implemented in bitcoin-core/gui#881.

…n module 3a03f07 qt: Avoid header circular dependency (Anthony Towns) 25884bd qt, refactor: Move `FreespaceChecker` class into its own module (Hennadii Stepanov) Pull request description: For some reason, the MOC compiler in older versions of Qt 6 fails to parse `qt/intro.cpp`, as noted in [this comment](#32998 (comment)). This PR proposes a move-only refactoring to simplify the source structure by eliminating the need for the inline `#include <qt/intro.moc>`, thereby effectively working around the issue. Required for #32998. ACKs for top commit: ajtowns: ACK 3a03f07 Tree-SHA512: 4a7261f04fff9bd8edd4dc2df619c90e06417e19da672dd688a917cd0b9a324a6db7185a47c48f0385713b5e6c45d2204bef58cbe6c77299386136ed5682bd8d

src/script/verify_flags.h

darosior · 2025-07-31T13:53:22Z

Concept ACK.

Moves FormatScriptFlags logic into GetScriptFlagNames which returns a vector of strings. For completeness, also has GetScriptFlagNames report on any bits that do not match a known script flag.

Previously the SCRIPT_VERIFY_* flags were specified as either uint32_t, unsigned int, or unsigned. This converts them to a common type alias in preparation for changing the underlying type.

`using script_verify_flags = uint32_t` allows implicit conversion to and from int, so replace it with a class to have the compiler ensure we use the correct type. Provide from_int and as_int to allow for explicit conversions when desired. Introduces the type `script_verify_flag_name` for the individual flag name enumeration.

Instead of having `SCRIPT_VERIFY_FOO = (1U << n)` just have it be `n` directly, and do the bit shifting when converting it to `script_verify_flags`.

ajtowns · 2025-08-14T01:22:50Z

Rebased past header conflict with #33116

ajtowns force-pushed the 202507-script-verify-flags branch from 725dbeb to 0c82b29 Compare July 16, 2025 23:00

DrahtBot added the CI failed label Jul 16, 2025

ajtowns force-pushed the 202507-script-verify-flags branch from 0c82b29 to e193e9b Compare July 17, 2025 00:02

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Jul 19, 2025

script: return verification flag responsible for error upon validation failure #33012

Draft

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label Jul 26, 2025

ajtowns force-pushed the 202507-script-verify-flags branch from e193e9b to 81a10f7 Compare July 26, 2025 09:30

hebasto mentioned this pull request Jul 26, 2025

Move FreespaceChecker class into its own module bitcoin-core/gui#881

Merged

DrahtBot removed the Needs rebase label Jul 26, 2025

ajtowns force-pushed the 202507-script-verify-flags branch from 81a10f7 to 077797c Compare July 31, 2025 00:23

DrahtBot reviewed Jul 31, 2025

View reviewed changes

src/script/verify_flags.h Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

ajtowns force-pushed the 202507-script-verify-flags branch from 077797c to b96c1b9 Compare July 31, 2025 06:50

DrahtBot removed the CI failed label Jul 31, 2025

This was referenced Aug 1, 2025

refactor: Convert uint256 to Txid #33116

Merged

refactor: unify container presence checks #33094

Closed

DrahtBot mentioned this pull request Aug 9, 2025

BIP360: Includes the following: #33163

Closed

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label Aug 13, 2025

ajtowns added 7 commits August 14, 2025 10:17

Move mapFlagNames and FormatScriptFlags logic to script/interpreter.h

5db8cd2

Moves FormatScriptFlags logic into GetScriptFlagNames which returns a vector of strings. For completeness, also has GetScriptFlagNames report on any bits that do not match a known script flag.

validation: export GetBlockScriptFlags()

a398693

rpc: have getdeploymentinfo report script verify flags

4577fb2

script/interpreter: introduce script_verify_flags typename

a5ead12

Previously the SCRIPT_VERIFY_* flags were specified as either uint32_t, unsigned int, or unsigned. This converts them to a common type alias in preparation for changing the underlying type.

script/interpreter: make script_verify_flag_name an ordinary enum

3cbbcb6

Instead of having `SCRIPT_VERIFY_FOO = (1U << n)` just have it be `n` directly, and do the bit shifting when converting it to `script_verify_flags`.

script/verify_flags: extend script_verify_flags to 64 bits

417437e

ajtowns force-pushed the 202507-script-verify-flags branch from b96c1b9 to 417437e Compare August 14, 2025 00:58

DrahtBot removed the Needs rebase label Aug 14, 2025

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit #32998

Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit #32998

ajtowns commented Jul 16, 2025

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Jul 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

ajtowns commented Jul 16, 2025

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Jul 16, 2025

Uh oh!

ajtowns commented Jul 17, 2025

Uh oh!

hebasto commented Jul 17, 2025

Uh oh!

instagibbs commented Jul 17, 2025

Uh oh!

fanquake commented Jul 17, 2025

Uh oh!

hebasto commented Jul 17, 2025

Uh oh!

ajtowns commented Jul 19, 2025

Uh oh!

fanquake commented Jul 26, 2025

Uh oh!

hebasto commented Jul 26, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

darosior commented Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

ajtowns commented Aug 14, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit #32998

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Bump SCRIPT_VERIFY flags to 64 bit #32998

Conversation

ajtowns commented Jul 16, 2025

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Jul 16, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Code Coverage & Benchmarks

Reviews

Conflicts

Uh oh!

ajtowns commented Jul 16, 2025

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Jul 16, 2025

Uh oh!

ajtowns commented Jul 17, 2025

Uh oh!

hebasto commented Jul 17, 2025

Uh oh!

instagibbs commented Jul 17, 2025

Uh oh!

fanquake commented Jul 17, 2025

Uh oh!

hebasto commented Jul 17, 2025

Uh oh!

ajtowns commented Jul 19, 2025

Uh oh!

fanquake commented Jul 26, 2025

Uh oh!

hebasto commented Jul 26, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

darosior commented Jul 31, 2025

Uh oh!

ajtowns commented Aug 14, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Jul 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading