1 2017-02-09 01:31:04	0|gmaxwell|I really wish there were an offline and tui github interface.
  2 2017-02-09 01:31:57	0|gmaxwell|jnewbery: Did you intend to thumbs down 9715 without a comment?
  3 2017-02-09 01:33:00	0|gmaxwell|(I only ask because maybe a comment got lost or you clicked the wrong button.)
  4 2017-02-09 06:30:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 4 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/dd163f578869...36f9d3ae6da4
  5 2017-02-09 06:30:36	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1493ffba7 15Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: Qt/Intro: Chain state needs to be stored even with the full blockchain
  6 2017-02-09 06:30:36	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14a9baa6d 15Luke Dashjr: Bugfix: Qt/Intro: Pruned nodes never require *more* space
  7 2017-02-09 06:30:36	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c8cee26 15Luke Dashjr: Qt/Intro: Update block chain size
  8 2017-02-09 06:58:12	0|wumpus|should bitseed.xf2.org be removed from the seeds? re: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8861#issuecomment-278140201
  9 2017-02-09 07:47:31	0|luke-jr|wumpus: dunno, but I would prefer if bug text wasn't updated so as to make it useless for understanding what the problem was :p
 10 2017-02-09 07:48:25	0|wumpus|luke-jr: changed the title
 11 2017-02-09 07:48:36	0|luke-jr|XD
 12 2017-02-09 08:00:49	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #9726: netbase: Do not print an error on connection timeouts through proxy (06master...062017_02_intr_recv_error) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9726
 13 2017-02-09 08:22:41	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj opened pull request #9727: Remove fallbacks for boost_filesystem < v3 (06master...062017_02_boostfs_flailbacks) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9727
 14 2017-02-09 09:12:02	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15NicolasDorier opened pull request #9728: Can create Watch Only HD wallet with -hdwatchonly (06master...06watchonlyhd) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9728
 15 2017-02-09 10:33:06	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jonasschnelli opened pull request #9730: Remove bitseed.xf2.org form the dns seed list (06master...062017/02/seeds) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9730
 16 2017-02-09 10:33:06	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: yes. Lets remove it.
 17 2017-02-09 10:33:35	0|jonasschnelli|Try a couple of addrs from the bitseed.xf2.org DNS response...
 18 2017-02-09 10:33:43	0|jonasschnelli|I could not get a single address that responsed on 8333
 19 2017-02-09 14:34:00	0|brg444|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9441 is this set to make it into 0.14?
 20 2017-02-09 14:44:52	0|Lauda|brg444 I see it marked for 0.14.0?
 21 2017-02-09 14:45:16	0|brg444|yeah nvm :P
 22 2017-02-09 16:19:43	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15earonesty opened pull request #9731: Bitcoin Unlimited Pull Request (06master...06release) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9731
 23 2017-02-09 16:20:03	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15earonesty closed pull request #9731: Bitcoin Unlimited Pull Request (06master...06release) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9731
 24 2017-02-09 16:20:12	0|instagibbs|I seem to always forget, but what's the best way to get a reference(or copy) of a CScript as a unsigned char*
 25 2017-02-09 16:21:02	0|instagibbs|sigh, as soon as I ask.. .front() seems to do trick
 26 2017-02-09 16:22:07	0|cfields|didn't we give it a .data() ?
 27 2017-02-09 16:24:47	0|instagibbs|appears so in master, working on slightly older branch. good call.
 28 2017-02-09 16:32:20	0|cfields|ah, ok
 29 2017-02-09 16:43:54	0|sipa|instagibbs: you can't call front om an empty vector
 30 2017-02-09 16:44:24	0|sipa|and if it isn't empty, &v[0] works fine
 31 2017-02-09 16:52:15	0|instagibbs|what happens if I do call it on an empty vector?
 32 2017-02-09 16:52:46	0|Chris_Stewart_5|index out of bounds?
 33 2017-02-09 18:24:49	0|sipa|instagibbs: undefined
 34 2017-02-09 18:25:31	0|sipa|Chris_Stewart_5: no, operator[] does not do bounds checking. you're simply only allowed to call it for indexes that exist
 35 2017-02-09 18:38:52	0|wumpus|it's one of the wacky things about c++, but we shouldn't care now that c++11 added .data()
 36 2017-02-09 18:39:56	0|wumpus|we used to have begin_ptr and end_ptr functions to go from a vector to a begin/end pointer and wrap the "if empty" logic, but that's no longer necessary with data()
 37 2017-02-09 18:43:49	0|Chris_Stewart_5|wumpus: Yes, coming from jvm land this has been a little confusing for me. I'll have to read more about .data()
 38 2017-02-09 18:48:59	0|cfields|Chris_Stewart_5: throw .at() in for even more fun :)
 39 2017-02-09 18:52:13	0|instagibbs|sigh. The More You Know
 40 2017-02-09 18:55:44	0|wumpus|yes it's bizarre
 41 2017-02-09 18:57:15	0|MarcoFalke|meeting in 3 minutes I guess
 42 2017-02-09 18:57:25	0|wumpus|yes
 43 2017-02-09 19:00:13	0|sipa|ploink
 44 2017-02-09 19:01:29	0|MarcoFalke|everyone too busy reviewing code
 45 2017-02-09 19:01:41	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Feb  9 19:01:39 2017 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
 46 2017-02-09 19:01:41	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
 47 2017-02-09 19:01:41	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
 48 2017-02-09 19:01:45	0|jonasschnelli|hi
 49 2017-02-09 19:02:29	0|wumpus|topic: 0.14, I guess
 50 2017-02-09 19:03:27	0|jonasschnelli|What holds the rc1 back? The open PRs with 0.14 tag?
 51 2017-02-09 19:03:37	0|wumpus|there are some net issues
 52 2017-02-09 19:04:01	0|jonasschnelli|#9698
 53 2017-02-09 19:04:03	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9698 | net: fix socket close race by theuni · Pull Request #9698 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 54 2017-02-09 19:04:32	0|wumpus|#9698 #9715 #9720
 55 2017-02-09 19:04:34	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9698 | net: fix socket close race by theuni · Pull Request #9698 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 56 2017-02-09 19:04:35	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9715 | Disconnect peers which we do not receive VERACKs from within 60 sec by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9715 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 57 2017-02-09 19:04:37	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9720 | net: fix banning and disallow sending messages before receiving verack by theuni · Pull Request #9720 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 58 2017-02-09 19:04:44	0|wumpus|but I'm not sure that's all; cfields here?
 59 2017-02-09 19:04:52	0|cfields|and the atomics, or did those go in this morning?
 60 2017-02-09 19:05:29	0|cfields|#9708
 61 2017-02-09 19:05:31	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9708 | Clean Up all known races/platform-specific UB by TheBlueMatt · Pull Request #9708 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 62 2017-02-09 19:05:42	0|wumpus|you mean the wallet update counter?
 63 2017-02-09 19:05:59	0|wumpus|that went in, I don't know about any other atomic changes
 64 2017-02-09 19:06:01	0|cfields|wumpus: ^^
 65 2017-02-09 19:06:33	0|cfields|not strictly necessary for 0.14, but makes it much easier to test the others
 66 2017-02-09 19:06:58	0|wumpus|ok will tag that too
 67 2017-02-09 19:08:31	0|wumpus|anything else?
 68 2017-02-09 19:08:41	0|cfields|sorry for the last minute issues. For back-story/context, BlueMatt began testing in helgrind, and came up with a list of possible races in the net code. I wrote a quick fuzz tool to try to hit some, and managed to do so in a few cases. Some are new issues, some are long-standing
 69 2017-02-09 19:09:23	0|wumpus|well, better to catch these before the release than after atleast :)
 70 2017-02-09 19:09:37	0|achow101|besides these net issues there's just the importmulti stuff left, yes?
 71 2017-02-09 19:09:39	0|cfields|the above PRs address all known races in the net code. By fixing even the harmless ones, it allows us to start using tools as part of c-i to avoid introducing new ones
 72 2017-02-09 19:10:00	0|sipa|do we want to update the static seed IP list for 0.14?
 73 2017-02-09 19:10:13	0|jonasschnelli|That would probably be a good idea.
 74 2017-02-09 19:10:26	0|wumpus|yes, we usually do that before a major release
 75 2017-02-09 19:10:38	0|wumpus|I'll do that
 76 2017-02-09 19:11:17	0|cfields|do defaultAssumeValid/nMinimumChainWork get bumps before rc1?
 77 2017-02-09 19:11:19	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15jnewbery opened pull request #9732: [Trivial] Remove nonsense #undef foreach (06master...06removeundefforeach) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9732
 78 2017-02-09 19:11:45	0|wumpus|#action update hardcoded seeds
 79 2017-02-09 19:12:09	0|sipa|we can update chainTxData (only used for progress estimation) for sure
 80 2017-02-09 19:13:37	0|wumpus|ok, do we have a script or something for that? I wouldn't know how to do that
 81 2017-02-09 19:13:56	0|MarcoFalke|I propose we do the bumps in the commit prior to branch off. thus we don't need to redo the work for the master branch
 82 2017-02-09 19:14:15	0|MarcoFalke|sipa: Is is mentioned in release process.md?
 83 2017-02-09 19:14:20	0|sipa|MarcoFalke: i believe not
 84 2017-02-09 19:14:31	0|sipa|MarcoFalke: i'll write a script, and add it to contrib/ ?
 85 2017-02-09 19:15:15	0|MarcoFalke|Add a note to release-process.md at least, so we don't forget about it in the future.
 86 2017-02-09 19:15:28	0|sipa|yeah, that too
 87 2017-02-09 19:15:41	0|MarcoFalke|If the script is only for maintainers, you can add it to the maintainer repo
 88 2017-02-09 19:16:20	0|sipa|it was updated in #9472, which is very recent, so i don't think it needs much adjusting, but we should have a procedure for it
 89 2017-02-09 19:16:36	0|MarcoFalke|I think it helps devs if the main repo is kept lean
 90 2017-02-09 19:16:46	0|sipa|ok
 91 2017-02-09 19:17:03	0|sipa|unsure what to do about defaultAssumeValid/nMinimumChainWork though
 92 2017-02-09 19:17:25	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9472 | Disentangle progress estimation from checkpoints and update it by sipa · Pull Request #9472 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 93 2017-02-09 19:18:39	0|wumpus|yes it'd help to have the process described in any case
 94 2017-02-09 19:19:26	0|gmaxwell|sipa: why unsure? there is a process documented in the relase instructions.
 95 2017-02-09 19:19:40	0|gmaxwell|follow the process.
 96 2017-02-09 19:19:58	0|MarcoFalke|sipa: We want those bumped as well, I guess. Would be nice to do assumevalid in a pull, so that people can review the hash.
 97 2017-02-09 19:20:23	0|gmaxwell|(if the process there is somehow insufficent, -- PR's accepted.)
 98 2017-02-09 19:20:31	0|sipa|gmaxwell: cool, i remember reviewing those release instructions even, just forgot about them
 99 2017-02-09 19:20:39	0|gmaxwell|oh good. :P
100 2017-02-09 19:21:11	0|gmaxwell|There isn't a script but it's trivial enough that I didn't think one was needed. (it's basically 'call getblockchaininfo')
101 2017-02-09 19:21:39	0|sipa|yeah, chainTxData is a bit more complicated as it needs an estimate of the tx/s rate
102 2017-02-09 19:21:42	0|sipa|but i'll PR a release process update
103 2017-02-09 19:22:07	0|MarcoFalke|#action update release process for chainTxData
104 2017-02-09 19:22:12	0|gmaxwell|sipa: thats 'read two updatetip lines' ?
105 2017-02-09 19:22:14	0|wumpus|ideally it'd be automated with a script, especially as it's under "every minor release"
106 2017-02-09 19:22:41	0|gmaxwell|make a RPC that emits a patch. :P
107 2017-02-09 19:23:19	0|wumpus|if it's manual work, it's probably going to be skipped for most minor releases
108 2017-02-09 19:23:32	0|wumpus|heck, weforget to update the version numbers half the time :-)
109 2017-02-09 19:24:19	0|wumpus|anyhow, any other topics?
110 2017-02-09 19:24:32	0|sipa|well what else is on the 0.14 tagged list?
111 2017-02-09 19:24:59	0|sipa|is #9392 going to be fixed?
112 2017-02-09 19:25:00	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9392 | Wallet ancestor sanity-check ignores sigops · Issue #9392 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
113 2017-02-09 19:25:01	0|jonasschnelli|#9108
114 2017-02-09 19:25:04	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9108 | Use importmulti timestamp when importing watch only keys by ryanofsky · Pull Request #9108 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
115 2017-02-09 19:25:19	0|sipa|i don't think 9392 is very high priority
116 2017-02-09 19:25:45	0|gmaxwell|I don't think 9392 is interesting at all.
117 2017-02-09 19:25:47	0|wumpus|ok, let's untag it for 0.14 then, there's enough high priority stuff to worry about
118 2017-02-09 19:25:52	0|gmaxwell|it's not something our wallet can violate.
119 2017-02-09 19:25:59	0|gmaxwell|(I think, or if so it would be super fringe)
120 2017-02-09 19:26:21	0|wumpus|... it isn't tagged for 0.14
121 2017-02-09 19:26:40	0|wumpus|oh MarcoFalke just did that
122 2017-02-09 19:26:47	0|wumpus|:D
123 2017-02-09 19:29:38	0|MarcoFalke|The other issues tagged for 0.14 have pulls open. I think this concludes the meeting
124 2017-02-09 19:29:55	0|achow101|does anything else need to be added to the release notes?
125 2017-02-09 19:30:35	0|jonasschnelli|Yes. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8455
126 2017-02-09 19:30:38	0|gmaxwell|I haven't been following the wiki release notes. Hows that been going?
127 2017-02-09 19:31:27	0|wumpus|from what I remember all the things on the list were done
128 2017-02-09 19:31:31	0|gmaxwell|cool.
129 2017-02-09 19:31:41	0|achow101|I added a ton of stuff a couple of weeks ago
130 2017-02-09 19:31:48	0|wumpus|yes, awesome work achow101
131 2017-02-09 19:31:58	0|sipa|nice
132 2017-02-09 19:32:29	0|jonasschnelli|thanks achow101
133 2017-02-09 19:33:38	0|wumpus|I was planning on merging the release notes from the wiki just before the rc1 branch
134 2017-02-09 19:34:30	0|wumpus|or just after the 0.14 branch-off, in any case there's no reason to have them on master they'll be cleared there anyway
135 2017-02-09 19:34:36	0|MarcoFalke|you mean 0.14 branch or rc1 tag?
136 2017-02-09 19:34:44	0|wumpus|before the rc1 tag
137 2017-02-09 19:34:45	0|MarcoFalke|ok
138 2017-02-09 19:34:49	0|wumpus|or after the 0.14 branch
139 2017-02-09 19:34:54	0|wumpus|doesn't matter much :)
140 2017-02-09 19:35:00	0|achow101|there's only two things on the release notes todo that aren't checked off. I can't write them because I don't understand those topics :(
141 2017-02-09 19:35:14	0|sdaftuar|the release notes currently have a recommendation to run Bitcoin Knots, for miners wishing to retain "priority" sorting for mining.  i don't think recommending other forks of the project is appropriate (as i've brought up in the past)
142 2017-02-09 19:35:23	0|sipa|sdaftuar: agree
143 2017-02-09 19:35:51	0|wumpus|I don't think that makes much sense either
144 2017-02-09 19:36:05	0|jonasschnelli|sdaftuar: definitively.
145 2017-02-09 19:36:16	0|gmaxwell|My concern is different:
146 2017-02-09 19:36:24	0|jtimon|wumpus: if they're cleared on master after the fact, yeah, it doesn't matter
147 2017-02-09 19:36:44	0|gmaxwell|I think it's fine to recommend a compatible fork for a feature we don't care to support. BUT I think we should not be recommending priority, I think it's bad for users of the network.
148 2017-02-09 19:36:49	0|wumpus|jtimon: master will end up with empty release notes to be filled in for 0.15
149 2017-02-09 19:37:25	0|sdaftuar|gmaxwell: my primary concern is that developers on this project have not reviewed other forks.  secondarily, i agree with your concern that we should not be recommending priority
150 2017-02-09 19:37:31	0|gmaxwell|(also, if miners do want to do priority, the best way would be using the rpc and a prioriizing daemon... but see my part (2))
151 2017-02-09 19:37:41	0|wumpus|(and, after 0.14.0 final is released, with the 0.14.0.md in historical release notes)
152 2017-02-09 19:38:21	0|gmaxwell|Part of my answer to luke when he was complaining about priority is that if miners want priority (I think ~none do) they could just use knots. I think that might motivate that release note recommendation.
153 2017-02-09 19:38:33	0|gmaxwell|But me saying "you can use knots" is not the same as the project saying it
154 2017-02-09 19:38:46	0|sdaftuar|gmaxwell: yes, i think it's fine if you or luke individually make that recommendation
155 2017-02-09 19:38:51	0|wumpus|just doesn't make sense to recommend it in the release notes
156 2017-02-09 19:38:52	0|sdaftuar|well, "fine" :)
157 2017-02-09 19:39:28	0|wumpus|would marginally make sense if it was an experimental feature we were expecting to merge in later
158 2017-02-09 19:39:29	0|jtimon|wumpus: I see, I tend to prefer to put as much in master as possible (and if it makes sense), but in this case it really doesn't matter
159 2017-02-09 19:39:41	0|gmaxwell|I could make a post about 'I think you shouldn't use priority, I think ~no one does, but if you want-- there is knots' which might make luke happier. I wouldn't mind doing that personally.
160 2017-02-09 19:39:43	0|jtimon|it's release notes
161 2017-02-09 19:42:47	0|gmaxwell|in any case, +1 for removing that from release notes.
162 2017-02-09 19:42:52	0|achow101|it's gone
163 2017-02-09 19:42:54	0|jtimon|maybe just a question in a faq or something? "we don't recomment using prioirty, but if you miss it, there's knots at..."
164 2017-02-09 19:43:10	0|gmaxwell|jtimon: infrequently asked questions
165 2017-02-09 19:43:17	0|achow101|(jonasschnelli removed it)
166 2017-02-09 19:43:21	0|gmaxwell|never asked questions
167 2017-02-09 19:43:37	0|jtimon|gmaxwell: yeah, in some iaq.html then
168 2017-02-09 19:46:38	0|wumpus|ok, any other topics?
169 2017-02-09 19:47:29	0|wumpus|if not, let's close the meeting
170 2017-02-09 19:47:39	0|gmaxwell|I'm excited to get 0.14 out. It's got lots of great stuff. :)
171 2017-02-09 19:48:25	0|cfields|+1 :)
172 2017-02-09 19:48:25	0|sipa|indeed
173 2017-02-09 19:48:25	0|wumpus|me too, it should be close now, everyone review!: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+milestone%3A0.14.0
174 2017-02-09 19:48:29	0|jtimon|yep, many optimizations and cleanups
175 2017-02-09 19:49:44	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-02-09-19.01.log.html
176 2017-02-09 19:49:44	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Feb  9 19:49:42 2017 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
177 2017-02-09 19:49:44	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-02-09-19.01.html
178 2017-02-09 19:49:44	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2017/bitcoin-core-dev.2017-02-09-19.01.txt
179 2017-02-09 19:49:44	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
180 2017-02-09 19:56:14	0|morcos|oops sorry, the snow distracted me from the meeting
181 2017-02-09 19:57:30	0|morcos|achow101: you said there are 2 unchecked off things, but are there other things that need to be in release notes
182 2017-02-09 19:57:39	0|morcos|i think i need to mention all my new minimum fees
183 2017-02-09 19:57:54	0|sipa|morcos: comment about that on #8455 ?
184 2017-02-09 19:57:56	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8455 | TODO for release notes 0.14.0 · Issue #8455 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
185 2017-02-09 19:57:57	0|morcos|i can do that, but what's my deadline?
186 2017-02-09 19:58:56	0|MarcoFalke|morcos: Probably when rc1 is tagged
187 2017-02-09 19:59:22	0|morcos|ok, i can probably do it tomorrow if not tonight
188 2017-02-09 20:06:46	0|achow101|morcos: add them to the list with links to relevant PRs
189 2017-02-09 20:31:12	0|achow101|do maintainer scripts have to by python scripts?
190 2017-02-09 20:48:06	0|sipa|achow101: no, but they have to be usable by the people that tend to run them :)
191 2017-02-09 20:48:18	0|sipa|(i would object to a visual basic program, for example)
192 2017-02-09 20:48:45	0|achow101|so bash would be fine
193 2017-02-09 20:48:50	0|sipa|oh, sure
194 2017-02-09 20:50:42	0|achow101|ok. I think I'm going to write a do-the-pre-release-things script which does the version increment, seed update, etc
195 2017-02-09 20:51:14	0|achow101|(because apparently we forget to do those)
196 2017-02-09 21:17:37	0|sipa|achow101: that would be nice
197 2017-02-09 21:30:09	0|BlueMatt|does anyone have a 0.14-testing branch anywhere?
198 2017-02-09 21:30:15	0|BlueMatt|(ie with all the 0.14-tagged things merged)
199 2017-02-09 22:07:59	0|cfields|BlueMatt: not an answer to your question, but another branch for you to look at: https://github.com/theuni/bitcoin/tree/2017-02-fix-copystats-races
200 2017-02-09 22:08:28	0|BlueMatt|cfields: what all is integrated there?
201 2017-02-09 22:08:37	0|cfields|BlueMatt: that adds threading annotations for most net vars, and verifies your race fixes
202 2017-02-09 22:08:50	0|BlueMatt|ahh
203 2017-02-09 22:08:55	0|BlueMatt|is the first a fix for more races?
204 2017-02-09 22:08:56	0|cfields|here are the outstanding ones it turned up: https://github.com/theuni/bitcoin/commit/d185ca0840f8107b2cf4307f51d703e849532928
205 2017-02-09 22:09:23	0|BlueMatt|ahh, not actual races because of ordering of Start/Stop with other things, but, yea, should fix
206 2017-02-09 22:09:26	0|cfields|yea. i don't think we actually need to worry about most of it
207 2017-02-09 22:09:47	0|cfields|the only one with any weight is the cs_filter
208 2017-02-09 22:10:01	0|cfields|that one's still actually racy
209 2017-02-09 22:10:57	0|BlueMatt|oh, I guess i never evicted in helgrind, yea
210 2017-02-09 22:11:02	0|cfields|it's fRelayTxes and pfilter
211 2017-02-09 22:11:50	0|BlueMatt|yea
212 2017-02-09 22:11:53	0|BlueMatt|oh pfilter too? ouch
213 2017-02-09 22:12:03	0|BlueMatt|oh, pfilter != NULL
214 2017-02-09 22:12:04	0|BlueMatt|not so bad
215 2017-02-09 22:12:07	0|BlueMatt|but, yea, race
216 2017-02-09 22:13:23	0|cfields|adding the lock there is kinda ugly, any better ideas?
217 2017-02-09 22:15:45	0|BlueMatt|cfields: I think the lock is fine? I mean it goes away two LOC later?
218 2017-02-09 22:21:52	0|cfields|BlueMatt: just that cs_filter is held with wide scope in net_processing, i'm concerned about the ordering
219 2017-02-09 22:26:26	0|BlueMatt|cfields: agreed, does clang do lockorder checking in its compile-time stuff?
220 2017-02-09 22:26:30	0|BlueMatt|(or can we make it?)
221 2017-02-09 22:26:42	0|sipa|yes
222 2017-02-09 22:27:10	0|cfields|yea, you can tell it that a lock is not allowed here
223 2017-02-09 22:27:56	0|cfields|playing with that now
224 2017-02-09 22:28:46	0|sipa|the definitions in src/threadsafety.h
225 2017-02-09 22:48:49	0|cfields|ACQUIRED_BEFORE(...) and ACQUIRED_AFTER(...) are currently unimplemented
226 2017-02-09 22:48:51	0|cfields|fantastic.
227 2017-02-09 22:49:20	0|BlueMatt|heh
228 2017-02-09 22:49:25	0|BlueMatt|does clang support them, though?
229 2017-02-09 22:50:00	0|cfields|https://clang.llvm.org/docs/ThreadSafetyAnalysis.html
230 2017-02-09 22:50:05	0|cfields|that's from the clang docs
231 2017-02-09 22:50:30	0|BlueMatt|heh
232 2017-02-09 23:15:03	0|cfields|mm, nope. It's not smart enough to figure it out. The fact that cs_vNodes lives in CConnman and cs_filter lives in CNode is too much.
233 2017-02-09 23:16:50	0|luke-jr|can someone reopen #7339 please?
234 2017-02-09 23:16:52	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7339 | Support building without libevent by luke-jr · Pull Request #7339 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
235 2017-02-09 23:36:10	0|cfields|BlueMatt: how much do you hate this https://github.com/theuni/bitcoin/commit/c6a93bd5313297d7ec091988a46366cfc12fef3c ? rather just pile on more atomics instead?