1 2017-01-14 00:03:49	0|midnightmagic|In src/core_write.cpp:ScriptToAsmStr() there is a check for an integer printout with 0 <= vch.size() <= 4 -- otherwise it prints out a hex string. But for decodescript 6900, (decoding to OP_VERIFY 0) the vch.size() I believe for the second byte is 0, rather than an actual 0x00, and so the decode works apparently by accident..? Am I missing something?
  2 2017-01-14 00:06:30	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3908fc472805...e126d0c12ca6
  3 2017-01-14 00:06:31	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14997a98a 15Gregory Maxwell: Replace FindLatestBefore used by importmuti with FindEarliestAtLeast....
  4 2017-01-14 00:06:32	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 144b06e41 15Suhas Daftuar: Add unit test for FindEarliestAtLeast
  5 2017-01-14 00:06:32	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e126d0c 15Pieter Wuille: Merge #9490: Replace FindLatestBefore used by importmuti with FindEarliestAtLeast....
  6 2017-01-14 00:06:44	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa closed pull request #9490: Replace FindLatestBefore used by importmuti with FindEarliestAtLeast. (06master...06fix_find_latest_before) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9490
  7 2017-01-14 00:29:18	0|cfields|sipa: good idea. I'm not exactly sure how to execute it though. I'd rather not trip up someone's manual efforts to enable sanitizers. Maybe add a --enable-sanitizers config option, off by default, that tries to turn on as many non-conflicting ones as possible?
  8 2017-01-14 00:29:43	0|cfields|BlueMatt: woohoo! congrats on merge.
  9 2017-01-14 00:31:12	0|sipa|cfields: we may need 2 or 3 separate builds with sanitizers, unfortunately
 10 2017-01-14 00:32:19	0|sipa|cfields: but yes, optional sounds right
 11 2017-01-14 00:32:20	0|cfields|sipa: right. Maybe there's no realistic way to add to configure, then? We can just handle with cflags for travis/gitian :(
 12 2017-01-14 00:32:43	0|sipa|you wouldn't want to enable sanitizers on production binaries, obviously
 13 2017-01-14 00:33:07	0|cfields|right, it'd build both sets
 14 2017-01-14 00:33:43	0|cfields|I suppose just doing it for travis would be a start
 15 2017-01-14 00:34:10	0|cfields|we already have a slow, minimal build with debug cranked up for libstdc++.
 16 2017-01-14 00:36:40	0|sipa|the sets you can do are 1) -fsanitize=address -fsanitize=undefined -fno-omit-frame-pointer 2) -fsanitize=thread 3) -fsanitize=memory (clang only, and requires rebuild of all dependencies)
 17 2017-01-14 00:36:57	0|sipa|i've only played around with the first for now
 18 2017-01-14 00:39:00	0|cfields|is no-omit-frame-pointer needed for correctness? or just helpful backtraces?
 19 2017-01-14 00:39:19	0|sipa|i am not sure
 20 2017-01-14 00:39:39	0|cfields|that one might be tricky since it's enabled at -O2, iirc. Not sure what "-fno-omit-frame-pointer -O2" turns into
 21 2017-01-14 00:39:44	0|cfields|ok
 22 2017-01-14 00:40:36	0|sipa|i think individual -f things override the -O defaults
 23 2017-01-14 00:41:15	0|cfields|i would hope so. My fear is that it's order-based, like warnings.
 24 2017-01-14 00:41:21	0|sipa|ah
 25 2017-01-14 00:41:25	0|sipa|seems likely
 26 2017-01-14 00:42:09	0|cfields|if so, that'd be tricky, since -Ox sneak in all over the place.
 27 2017-01-14 00:42:12	0|cfields|will mess around with 'em
 28 2017-01-14 00:59:09	0|BlueMatt|cfields: yea, feels good to get a few things in for 0.14....do feel bad that I havent done enough review this week and am holding up things like bumpfee :'(
 29 2017-01-14 00:59:20	0|BlueMatt|will at least finish this review before going out :/
 30 2017-01-14 01:00:45	0|cfields|heh. it'd be a rookie move to make plans the weekend before freeze/release :)
 31 2017-01-14 01:01:01	0|BlueMatt|well he is a rookie, after all :p
 32 2017-01-14 01:01:08	0|sipa|like 'participating in the mit mystery hunt'
 33 2017-01-14 01:01:13	0|BlueMatt|(at least in bitcoin)
 34 2017-01-14 01:01:23	0|BlueMatt|heh, yea, what were you and gmaxwell thinking, sipa????
 35 2017-01-14 01:01:23	0|sipa|or 'agreeing to review workshop papers with deadline the 15th' ?
 36 2017-01-14 01:01:24	0|BlueMatt|:P
 37 2017-01-14 01:01:24	0|cfields|sipa: ahah, that's this weekend?
 38 2017-01-14 01:01:55	0|sipa|i'll be so happy when i get back to california on tuesday
 39 2017-01-14 01:02:14	0|sipa|all this vacation thing is too stressful
 40 2017-01-14 01:02:57	0|cfields|heh
 41 2017-01-14 01:04:42	0|cfields|jeremyrubin: are you still pushing for your checkqueue rewrite? I'm rebasing the interruptible threads, and just remembered how terribly inefficient that is. There are some easy gains for sure. But I won't mess with it if it's being nuked anyway.
 42 2017-01-14 01:07:08	0|gmaxwell|cfields: we should be careful with '--enable' because there are users that run ./configure and then turn on every enable.
 43 2017-01-14 01:08:25	0|luke-jr|sipa: note that -fsanitize=memory also has weird LLVM/kernel matching issues, and is basically impossible on Travis currently (I used to use it)
 44 2017-01-14 01:08:50	0|cfields|gmaxwell: well --enable-debug would already be hurting them pretty badly :)
 45 2017-01-14 01:08:51	0|sipa|luke-jr: ah, good to know
 46 2017-01-14 01:09:41	0|gmaxwell|cfields: yea agreed we should probably fix that -- though at least that one says 'debug'.
 47 2017-01-14 01:09:42	0|luke-jr|sipa: cfields: also, we absolutely should NOT use -fsanitize=x with prod binaries. they are not intended for that, and add exploits
 48 2017-01-14 01:09:50	0|sipa|luke-jr: absolutely!
 49 2017-01-14 01:10:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #9549: [net] Avoid possibility of NULL pointer dereference in MarkBlockAsInFlight(...) (06master...06avoid-potential-null-pointer-dereference-in-markblockasinflight) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9549
 50 2017-01-14 01:10:05	0|gmaxwell|maybe making them -dev-debug -dev-sanatize-foo etc would be sufficient.
 51 2017-01-14 01:10:49	0|gmaxwell|can someone tell him that if he thinks he actually has a possible null reref in code like that he should send it privately?
 52 2017-01-14 01:11:14	0|gmaxwell|oh the description is okay
 53 2017-01-14 01:11:29	0|gmaxwell|(ignore me)
 54 2017-01-14 01:11:39	0|sipa|ideally i think those sanitize things should build separate binaries (bitcoind_san_X, test_bitcoin_san_X, ...)
 55 2017-01-14 01:11:54	0|sipa|if that's at all possible
 56 2017-01-14 01:12:07	0|sipa|maybe it's easier with a wrapper script around configure/make rather than inside the system
 57 2017-01-14 01:12:11	0|luke-jr|is there a reason to special-case it at all? what's wrong with just passing CXXFLAGS?
 58 2017-01-14 01:12:36	0|cfields|luke-jr: read the discussion above :)
 59 2017-01-14 01:12:49	0|sipa|ideally, make check etc... build the multiple configurations and run all tests on all
 60 2017-01-14 01:13:03	0|gmaxwell|As another side, we use the oneliners in our release notes but often our choice of them is really poor for this purpose.  Case in point ^ sounds like a serious crasher or even exploitable.
 61 2017-01-14 01:13:10	0|luke-jr|cfields: I did skim it, but didn't see a rationale
 62 2017-01-14 01:15:01	0|sipa|luke-jr: if we do it as a wrapper around (and just re-run configure and test for each of the sanitizers), it will just be passing CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS
 63 2017-01-14 01:15:14	0|cfields|luke-jr: i was kinda thinking same as you. Not sure it makes sense to handle in the build-system. as sipa said, maybe a wrapper makes more sense
 64 2017-01-14 01:15:23	0|sipa|luke-jr: but it would be nice if it was completely integrated, so that the multiple tests/builds can run in parallel just from make, for exampe
 65 2017-01-14 01:15:55	0|luke-jr|oh, for make check basically?
 66 2017-01-14 01:15:58	0|sipa|right
 67 2017-01-14 01:16:10	0|sipa|but make check should also run pull-tester/rpc-tests.py then
 68 2017-01-14 01:16:32	0|sipa|i guess we can just start by doing it as a wrapper over the build system
 69 2017-01-14 01:17:25	0|luke-jr|making make check run rpc tests shouldn't be hard, unlike sanitizers :P
 70 2017-01-14 01:21:12	0|cfields|sipa: hmm, how do they interact with lto? it'd be nice if some of them could be enabled at link-time
 71 2017-01-14 01:22:25	0|sipa|cfields: they play well with lto, but you need to pass them both at compile and at link time, i think
 72 2017-01-14 01:22:43	0|midnightmagic|Is a verbose transaction decode available through the rpc block decode interfaces..?
 73 2017-01-14 01:23:07	0|sipa|decoderawtransaction?
 74 2017-01-14 01:24:11	0|midnightmagic|sipa: The function interface has a txDetails bool which defaults to false but .. I don't know where it can be called with true through the rpc. Only the REST interface I think..?
 75 2017-01-14 01:24:28	0|midnightmagic|blockToJSON() I mean.
 76 2017-01-14 01:24:53	0|achow101|midnightmagic: you mean with something like getblock?
 77 2017-01-14 01:24:58	0|midnightmagic|Yeah.
 78 2017-01-14 01:25:07	0|achow101|no. but I have an open pr for that
 79 2017-01-14 01:25:33	0|midnightmagic|ah, nice. \o thanks. I'll look for your PR then instead of doing my own.
 80 2017-01-14 01:26:24	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15gmaxwell opened pull request #9550: Trim down the XP notice and say more about what we support. (06master...06we_got_it_already) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9550
 81 2017-01-14 01:27:00	0|achow101|midnightmagic: #8704
 82 2017-01-14 01:27:02	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8704 | [RPC] Transaction details in getblock by achow101 · Pull Request #8704 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 83 2017-01-14 01:28:10	0|midnightmagic|excellent.
 84 2017-01-14 01:29:46	0|sipa|</mrburns>
 85 2017-01-14 01:30:21	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: I really wish make check ran the rpc tests though the rpc tests have more dependencies than the oridnary builds.
 86 2017-01-14 01:30:33	0|gmaxwell|But I think we need to, because increasingly the useful tests are in rpctests.
 87 2017-01-14 01:30:47	0|gmaxwell|I think current make check has a poor ratio of excution time to sensitivity.
 88 2017-01-14 02:06:38	0|BlueMatt|morcos: getbalance("*", 1, True) is defined as a synonym of getbalance(), but bumpfee breaks that
 89 2017-01-14 02:06:54	0|BlueMatt|(note that I think bumpfee also breaks some account balance shit, but I didnt bother to audit that - do we care?)
 90 2017-01-14 02:08:31	0|BlueMatt|morcos / sdaftuar / ryanofsky: please add the following test-case https://0bin.net/paste/m91nHUQbD39EXaQ6#9fJ3bvAfAib5xWWwVdh3Ck0v7jQht1r8iDMQKQDpfTC
 91 2017-01-14 02:08:33	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9 | Fix for GUI on Macs and latest wxWidgets by gavinandresen · Pull Request #9 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 92 2017-01-14 02:08:39	0|BlueMatt|no gribble
 93 2017-01-14 02:10:29	0|BlueMatt|(it currently fails on the last line of the test)
 94 2017-01-14 02:10:46	0|BlueMatt|note that if you move that test to be the last one run you'll get fun results - getbalance("*", 1, True) is negative!
 95 2017-01-14 02:19:28	0|instagibbs|BlueMatt, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8183 Perhaps still the case
 96 2017-01-14 02:19:37	0|instagibbs|they haven't been the same in a number of cases already :(
 97 2017-01-14 02:20:17	0|BlueMatt|hum, ok, that seems shit
 98 2017-01-14 02:21:02	0|BlueMatt|can we tag #8183 for 0.14, then, that is insane
 99 2017-01-14 02:21:03	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8183 | getbalance comment incorrect · Issue #8183 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
100 2017-01-14 02:21:09	0|morcos|BlueMatt: I had assumed there might be an issue like that after you brought up your GUI question, and it was on my list to look into...
101 2017-01-14 02:21:10	0|BlueMatt|we either need to fix it or fix the docs in getbalance
102 2017-01-14 02:21:23	0|BlueMatt|they significantly imply that if you specify "*" as account you'll get sane results
103 2017-01-14 02:21:26	0|morcos|i guess in my head i sometimes confuse getbalance "*" with something that has to do with accounts
104 2017-01-14 02:21:35	0|morcos|but quite honestly getbalance "*" is a shit show
105 2017-01-14 02:21:39	0|morcos|why do we even need it
106 2017-01-14 02:21:41	0|instagibbs|yeah it's really bad
107 2017-01-14 02:21:42	0|instagibbs|:)
108 2017-01-14 02:21:48	0|instagibbs|i mean :(
109 2017-01-14 02:21:49	0|morcos|i would suggest it should be deprecated with accounts
110 2017-01-14 02:21:50	0|BlueMatt|getbalance "*" should throw an exception as "FUCK YOU, WE DEPRECATED THIS FOREVER AGO"
111 2017-01-14 02:21:59	0|BlueMatt|it is marked deprecated the way i read the docs
112 2017-01-14 02:22:32	0|BlueMatt|the fact that it returns insanity is gonna confuse someone, and it has been deprecated, so it should throw an exception as its known-unsafe and we likely wont fix it
113 2017-01-14 02:23:00	0|morcos|From #9167 : "Note that the fee reported in the details and any other function which depends on ListTransactions is not changed as getbalance("*") depends on having incorrect negative fees calculated on mixed debit transactions in order to track the right balances."
114 2017-01-14 02:23:01	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9167 | IsAllFromMe by morcos · Pull Request #9167 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
115 2017-01-14 02:23:42	0|BlueMatt|I mean it may be deprecated, but that doesnt mean it gets to return insanity
116 2017-01-14 02:23:46	0|BlueMatt|if its gonna return insanity, it needs to die
117 2017-01-14 02:25:38	0|morcos|anyway got to go
118 2017-01-14 02:28:54	0|BlueMatt|when you have to google C++ operator precedence in the process of review, something has gone horribly wrong :'(
119 2017-01-14 02:44:48	0|gmaxwell|BlueMatt: time to study operator precidence more! :)
120 2017-01-14 02:50:15	0|BlueMatt|clearly
121 2017-01-14 03:14:10	0|fanquake|cfields Made the required changes in 9469, and pulled in your commits. Any chance while your looking at Qt stuff, you can take a look at #9126. Have you seen that issue at all?
122 2017-01-14 03:14:11	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9126 | An error has occurred and has been logged. Please contact this bot's administrator for more information.
123 2017-01-14 03:42:41	0|BlueMatt|I think #9484 is ready for merge
124 2017-01-14 03:42:43	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9484 | Introduce assumevalid setting to skip validation presumed valid scripts. by gmaxwell · Pull Request #9484 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
125 2017-01-14 03:42:50	0|BlueMatt|(just thought I'd mention it so it doesnt slip 0.14)
126 2017-01-14 03:44:37	0|BlueMatt|gmaxwell: you were saying you'd be super dissapointed if some of the net fixes didnt make 0.14...well there is one bunch left from your pr that is at risk - #9535
127 2017-01-14 03:44:39	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9535 | Split CNode::cs_vSend: message processing and message sending by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9535 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
128 2017-01-14 03:45:23	0|BlueMatt|9535 wont add any, but I know of a few still left
129 2017-01-14 04:03:50	0|BlueMatt|sipa: thar be dragons
130 2017-01-14 04:03:54	0|BlueMatt|(not cause by 9535)
131 2017-01-14 04:04:03	0|BlueMatt|d
132 2017-01-14 04:04:10	0|sipa|yes, i expect it to fail (on master)
133 2017-01-14 04:04:11	0|BlueMatt|can I buy a "d"?
134 2017-01-14 04:04:19	0|BlueMatt|I can give you a list of places it will fail :p
135 2017-01-14 04:05:02	0|BlueMatt|alright folks, I'm all reviewed-out...and likely wont have time tomorrow. apologize for those I didnt get to, but will try again on sunday
136 2017-01-14 04:05:46	0|sipa|thanks!
137 2017-01-14 04:08:58	0|sipa|ok, bitcoin-cli fails with -fsanitize=thread... i think there is some build config failure
138 2017-01-14 04:28:26	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 152HCHO opened pull request #9551: disable out of sync warnings for regtest network (06master...06ca4b90519c3c210f) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9551
139 2017-01-14 04:59:29	0|cfields|sipa: yes, i'd expect that to be a bloodbath if it works. But there should be no new issues, i think
140 2017-01-14 04:59:52	0|cfields|sipa: specifically, anything that uses CNodeStats is very racy.
141 2017-01-14 05:19:11	0|sipa|cfields: i think it inteferes with some fortify/aslr/... we're using
142 2017-01-14 05:19:19	0|sipa|bitcoin-cli has no threads
143 2017-01-14 05:29:34	0|cfields|sipa: oh, yes, for sure
144 2017-01-14 05:29:56	0|cfields|i read somewhere that FORTIFY is incompatible with some, sec for link
145 2017-01-14 05:30:35	0|sipa|in fact, the compiler detector fails with -fsanitize=thread ("C++ compiler cannot produce binaries")
146 2017-01-14 05:31:17	0|cfields|sipa: https://www.sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-09/msg00080.html
147 2017-01-14 05:31:57	0|cfields|comes from here: https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizer
148 2017-01-14 05:35:12	0|cfields|fanquake: will have a look at 9126
149 2017-01-14 05:36:58	0|cfields|(at some point this weekend)
150 2017-01-14 05:37:23	0|fanquake|cfields cheers. Interesting build error on just the osx build of 9469. "Qt requires a C++11 compiler and yours does not seem to be that."
151 2017-01-14 05:38:46	0|fanquake|Thought I might have messed up passing -c++std c++11. But that looks ok. https://travis-ci.org/bitcoin/bitcoin/jobs/191837557#L895
152 2017-01-14 05:42:00	0|sipa|-std=c++11 ?
153 2017-01-14 05:55:15	0|cfields|fanquake: hmm, strange. it built fine for me locally
154 2017-01-14 05:55:39	0|fanquake|cfields yes me too.
155 2017-01-14 05:56:20	0|cfields|fanquake: ah, it's the damn .mm again
156 2017-01-14 05:57:25	0|cfields|fanquake: i noticed something at one point and suspected that might happen
157 2017-01-14 05:57:32	0|cfields|trying to remember
158 2017-01-14 05:59:19	0|cfields|ah, right
159 2017-01-14 05:59:35	0|cfields|fanquake: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/depends/config.site.in#L66
160 2017-01-14 05:59:50	0|cfields|mind nuking that line and giving it a try?
161 2017-01-14 06:01:32	0|fanquake|cfields Have pushed that change up to GH.
162 2017-01-14 06:01:40	0|fanquake|Will start a new build here also.
163 2017-01-14 06:02:39	0|cfields|thanks
164 2017-01-14 06:04:03	0|fanquake|Just realised I forgot you had two commits on top of mine, so that change is now part of your translations build commit.
165 2017-01-14 06:04:09	0|cfields|fanquake: for the reasoning, see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/configure.ac#L62
166 2017-01-14 06:04:17	0|fanquake|Can fixup later if the builds passed. Otherwise np.
167 2017-01-14 06:05:33	0|cfields|fanquake: np. Though if this fixes, we probably want to commit it as a one-liner. It's a good backport candidate.
168 2017-01-14 06:06:28	0|fanquake|cfields good point. Will split it out post builds passing.
169 2017-01-14 06:08:46	0|cfields|fanquake: only reason i mention is that i had a theory at one point that it was the cause of the 10.7 back-compat breakage. Since it's responsible for intoducing c++03 abi objects into the 0.13 build.
170 2017-01-14 06:11:27	0|fanquake|cfields ok. Just made note of it in a comment in that PR.
171 2017-01-14 06:14:50	0|cfields|fanquake: thanks :)
172 2017-01-14 06:15:25	0|fanquake|cfields I'll stop pestering now, you can go and enjoy the rest of your saturday heh
173 2017-01-14 06:18:04	0|cfields|fanquake: heh, np. i meant to test that a long time ago, glad it came up either way
174 2017-01-14 06:18:33	0|cfields|besides, this is what i enjoy :)
175 2017-01-14 06:19:55	0|cfields|woohoo, success
176 2017-01-14 06:21:38	0|fanquake|Awesome. I'll fixup that commit then.
177 2017-01-14 06:22:56	0|cfields|great, thanks again!
178 2017-01-14 09:17:35	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jamesmacwhite opened pull request #9552: Add IPv6 support to qos.sh (06master...06qos-ipv6) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9552
179 2017-01-14 09:41:21	0|jerryco|hello
180 2017-01-14 09:41:47	0|jerryco|how to install bitcoin-core centos ?
181 2017-01-14 09:43:58	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #9553: Use z = std::max(x - y, 0) instead of z = x - y; if (z < 0) z = 0; (06master...06std-max) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9553
182 2017-01-14 09:52:29	0|MarcoFalke|jerryco: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/build-unix.md#dependency-build-instructions-fedora
183 2017-01-14 10:25:54	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14988d300 15practicalswift: [qt] Rename formateNiceTimeOffset(qint64) to formatNiceTimeOffset(qint64)
184 2017-01-14 10:25:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e126d0c12ca6...8daf103fa138
185 2017-01-14 10:25:55	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148daf103 15MarcoFalke: Merge #9528: [qt] Rename formateNiceTimeOffset(qint64) to formatNiceTimeOffset(qint64)...
186 2017-01-14 10:26:06	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #9528: [qt] Rename formateNiceTimeOffset(qint64) to formatNiceTimeOffset(qint64) (06master...06rename-formateNiceTimeOffset) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9528
187 2017-01-14 10:31:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8daf103fa138...23281a4dc3af
188 2017-01-14 10:31:06	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1434ede12 15Alex Morcos: Document fee estimation changes
189 2017-01-14 10:31:06	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14b348287 15Alex Morcos: Clarify that prioritisetransaction remains supported
190 2017-01-14 10:31:07	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1423281a4 15MarcoFalke: Merge #9531: Release notes for estimation changes...
191 2017-01-14 10:31:19	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #9531: Release notes for estimation changes  (06master...06relnotes) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9531
192 2017-01-14 18:51:49	0|sipa|cfields: -fsanitize=thread "runs" with LDFLAGS="-no-pie"
193 2017-01-14 18:52:55	0|luke-jr|sipa: only with newer compilers.. neither Gentoo-stable compiler supports sanitize=thread without PIE
194 2017-01-14 18:53:12	0|luke-jr|and with PIE requires either a newer LLVM or older kernel
195 2017-01-14 18:53:31	0|luke-jr|(neither of which are available on Travis)
196 2017-01-14 18:54:27	0|luke-jr|the LLVM fix backports only so far as 3.8 FWIW (porting to 3.7 seemed difficult, at least)
197 2017-01-14 18:54:38	0|sipa|luke-jr: using gcc 6.2
198 2017-01-14 18:55:17	0|luke-jr|ok, just pointing out that isn't a reasonable min requirement ;)
199 2017-01-14 19:20:03	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #9554: [test] Avoid potential NULL pointer dereference in addrman_tests.cpp (06master...06avoid-null-pointer-dereference-in-addrman_tests) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9554
200 2017-01-14 19:45:40	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #9555: [test] Avoid triggering undefined behaviour in tx_invalid-test (transaction_tests.cpp) (06master...06avoid-ub-in-tx_invalid-test) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9555
201 2017-01-14 19:52:41	0|Netmage|Hi, I use bitcoint-qt. The size of the block chain is overall 113 GB large. Is this a normal value for the current block chain ?
202 2017-01-14 19:53:47	0|btcdrak|Netmage: sadly yes.
203 2017-01-14 19:54:51	0|Netmage|ok, is there a good way to decrease the size ?
204 2017-01-14 19:55:07	0|Netmage|Without having problems afterwards
205 2017-01-14 19:57:24	0|BlueMatt|yes, luke-jr, Netcraft confirmed: gentoo is dead
206 2017-01-14 19:57:46	0|BlueMatt|Netmage: look at the docs for the -prune option
207 2017-01-14 19:57:56	0|luke-jr|Netmage: depends on if you need to restore old wallet backups etc
208 2017-01-14 19:58:18	0|BlueMatt|luke-jr: ok, sooooo utack for #9499?
209 2017-01-14 19:58:20	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9499 | Use recent-rejects, orphans, and recently-replaced txn for compact-block-reconstruction by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9499 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
210 2017-01-14 20:00:35	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: I did not complete review of all the code; I'm not sure it's worth doing as-is, but I don't object to it.
211 2017-01-14 20:01:19	0|BlueMatt|huh? folks have reported on the order of 10% fewer rtts!
212 2017-01-14 20:01:22	0|BlueMatt|how is that not worth doing?
213 2017-01-14 20:01:53	0|BlueMatt|(or more)
214 2017-01-14 20:02:11	0|luke-jr|it just seemed like a lot of complexity for what appeared to be random caching; maybe I'm wrong
215 2017-01-14 20:02:41	0|BlueMatt|most of that pr's "complexity" is copying one block of code.....
216 2017-01-14 20:02:41	0|luke-jr|maybe in practice it happens to work out to be very effective
217 2017-01-14 20:02:56	0|luke-jr|I did review that block
218 2017-01-14 20:03:07	0|BlueMatt|but, yes, three independant benchmarks posted on the pr suggested its a huge win
219 2017-01-14 20:03:30	0|luke-jr|ok, maybe it is! I'm not objecting
220 2017-01-14 20:04:02	0|luke-jr|if my review matters for the merge, I can go back and finish it
221 2017-01-14 20:05:10	0|BlueMatt|all reviews matter
222 2017-01-14 20:05:12	0|BlueMatt|:)
223 2017-01-14 20:05:25	0|luke-jr|maybe I should be doing this one commit-by-commit
224 2017-01-14 20:05:31	0|BlueMatt|yes
225 2017-01-14 20:05:50	0|BlueMatt|that tends to make most reviews easier :p
226 2017-01-14 20:12:24	0|luke-jr|I'd be a lot more comfortable that there isn't an implicit mask in rebasing code, if plTxnReplaced were at the end of the function signature
227 2017-01-14 20:12:46	0|luke-jr|s/mask/cast/
228 2017-01-14 20:14:25	0|BlueMatt|I believe gcc would complain in any way you fuck that up?
229 2017-01-14 20:14:32	0|luke-jr|checking..
230 2017-01-14 20:14:39	0|BlueMatt|it should complain if you try to pass a bool into that pointer?
231 2017-01-14 20:15:20	0|BlueMatt|i suppose unless, for some reason, you want to fOverrideMempoolLimit based on whether not a std::vector<CTransactionRef>* is non-null
232 2017-01-14 20:15:22	0|BlueMatt|but......
233 2017-01-14 20:16:29	0|luke-jr|yeah, probably safe
234 2017-01-14 20:23:43	0|luke-jr|BlueMatt: c73554042886fb63fb48edf29cf827951edde341 needs a #include "netprocessing.h" in init.cpp I think
235 2017-01-14 20:24:23	0|BlueMatt|init has an include net_processing?
236 2017-01-14 20:28:14	0|luke-jr|right, nm
237 2017-01-14 20:47:19	0|BlueMatt|cfields: is there a reason CConnman::ForNode calls the provided function with cs_vNodes still locked? that seems bad?
238 2017-01-14 20:47:59	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #9556: Remove redundant semicolons (06master...06remove-redundant-braces) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9556
239 2017-01-14 20:55:47	0|Chris_Stewart_5|If anyone is interested in #8469 and wants to get some internet points on SO: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/41539334/including-header-file-in-cpp-causes-nasty-error
240 2017-01-14 20:55:49	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8469 | [POC] Introducing property based testing to Core by Christewart · Pull Request #8469 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
241 2017-01-14 21:16:26	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #9557: Use static_cast<new_type>(...) instead of deprecated new_type(...) (functional cast) (06master...06avoid-functional-cast-expression) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9557
242 2017-01-14 21:42:32	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #9558: Clarify assumptions made about when BlockCheck is called (06master...062017-01-blockcheckeddocs) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9558
243 2017-01-14 22:08:53	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 152HCHO closed pull request #9551: disable out of sync warnings for regtest network (06master...06ca4b90519c3c210f) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9551
244 2017-01-14 22:23:38	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #9559: [net] Avoid possibility of NULL pointer dereference in ProcessMessage(...) (06master...06avoid-null-pointer-deref-in-processmessage) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9559
245 2017-01-14 23:04:09	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15practicalswift opened pull request #9560: [rpc] Avoid possibility of NULL pointer dereference in getblocktemplate(...) (06master...06avoid-null-pointer-dereference-in-rpc-blockchain) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9560
246 2017-01-14 23:38:00	0|BlueMatt|man practicalswift needs to calm down a bit with this....bad timing, yo
247 2017-01-14 23:42:09	0|sipa|release's on fire, yo
248 2017-01-14 23:43:28	0|BlueMatt|yea, as in a bunch of stuff is cruisin' to miss :(
249 2017-01-14 23:43:32	0|BlueMatt|sipa: how's mystery hung going?
250 2017-01-14 23:43:34	0|BlueMatt|t
251 2017-01-14 23:47:18	0|sipa|BlueMatt: first team finished at 4am this morning, shortest hunt ever
252 2017-01-14 23:47:30	0|sipa|BlueMatt: our team finished early afternoon today
253 2017-01-14 23:48:50	0|BlueMatt|oh shit, wow
254 2017-01-14 23:51:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15TheBlueMatt opened pull request #9561: Wake message handling thread when we receive a new block (06master...062017-01-wakeup-on-new-block) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9561
255 2017-01-14 23:53:37	0|BlueMatt|^ one-line change provides 100ms improvement in block-relay latency for non-compact-block peers :p