Cory Fields

> @dergoegge Ah, thanks for the correction. The option does indeed currently pass through to secp, so that bullet-point in my commit message is wrong and I'll update it. Sorry...

> The one difference I notice without `--disable-asm` is this additional entry near the beginning of the fuzz run (after which the fuzzer continues to run): > @jonatack Since you...

@fanquake Do you think it's too late for this for v27? It would imply require getting https://github.com/bitcoin-core/crc32c-subtree/pull/6 in, I think.

> In the libsecp repo, the `--with-asm=no` option is still required to avoid MSan warnings. Can you point to where this is an issue? It looks as though secp has...

> > > In the libsecp repo, the `--with-asm=no` option is still required to avoid MSan warnings. > > > > > > Can you point to where this is...

Any other sanitizer false-positives while we're at it? :)

From `developer-notes.md`: > There are a number of known problems when using the `address` sanitizer. The > address sanitizer is known to fail in > [sha256_sse4::Transform](/src/crypto/sha256_sse4.cpp) which makes it unusable...

I pushed a commit to remove references to `disable-asm` from our docs as @fanquake suggested, in anticipation of: - merging https://github.com/bitcoin-core/crc32c-subtree/pull/6 and syncing our subtree - confirmation that `sha256_sse4::Transform` is...

This now depends on #29493

Rebased and removed RFC from PR title.