1 2017-02-17 02:25:03	0|achow101|is the zmq_test failing for anyone else?
  2 2017-02-17 02:25:14	0|achow101|(in rpc tests)
  3 2017-02-17 07:16:55	0|jonasschnelli|jnewbery: jeremyrubin: I can hold back the PR. There is no hurry. Lets firs aim on the one you have listed above
  4 2017-02-17 07:21:54	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: I happened to see the list recently, and I think you shouldn't waste your time arguing with people who are philosophically opposed to supporting encryption.  These people are acting in a way which is harmful to human rights and wellfare. I do not know if they are confused or if they are working for state actors which are opposed to personal freedom, or what. But it's a waste of ti
  5 2017-02-17 07:22:00	0|gmaxwell|me. Support for encryption and authication is completely optional and if other people want to use it it simply isn't any of their busienss.
  6 2017-02-17 07:22:55	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: Yes. That had cost me a lot of time and nerves... :)
  7 2017-02-17 07:23:09	0|jonasschnelli|Thanks!
  8 2017-02-17 07:24:02	0|jonasschnelli|gmaxwell: What I really dislikes is that those guys tried to enflame others and it partially worked... that's why I was commenting on some of the concerns
  9 2017-02-17 07:28:55	0|luke-jr|gmaxwell: or possibly scared of what State actors opposing encryption might do to them/Bitcoin
 10 2017-02-17 07:29:54	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: if so, then they're arguing dishonestly... and I can't see a reason to do that.
 11 2017-02-17 07:30:50	0|luke-jr|hm
 12 2017-02-17 07:32:03	0|gmaxwell|If someone argued that adding encryption to Bitcoin would make some state actors hate bitcoin, I think that could be pretty easily refuted.
 13 2017-02-17 08:07:45	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1455c403b 15John Newbery: Ensure `-maxsigcachesize` is in valid range...
 14 2017-02-17 08:07:45	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/afae75fd3dad...8dee82217708
 15 2017-02-17 08:07:46	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148dee822 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9777: Handle unusual maxsigcachesize gracefully...
 16 2017-02-17 08:07:57	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9777: Handle unusual maxsigcachesize gracefully (06master...06sigcache2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9777
 17 2017-02-17 09:45:32	0|Victorsueca|wumpus: you're going to tag 0.14 rc1 today?
 18 2017-02-17 10:07:09	0|wumpus|Victorsueca: unless there is a critical issue, that's the plan
 19 2017-02-17 10:12:32	0|Victorsueca|wumpus: anything that needs some extra testing on windows?
 20 2017-02-17 10:17:15	0|wumpus|argh my dev/build machine died, that's not a good start of the day...
 21 2017-02-17 10:19:58	0|Victorsueca|RIP
 22 2017-02-17 10:48:34	0|wumpus|building bitcoin core apparently breaks power supplies now :-) things should be back to normal, restarting testing gitian builds in a bit
 23 2017-02-17 10:49:55	0|gmaxwell|libsecp256k1 easily overheats cpus.
 24 2017-02-17 10:51:11	0|luke-jr|building it⁇
 25 2017-02-17 10:52:01	0|gmaxwell|for libsecp256k1? running the tests... which you hopefully do at build time!
 26 2017-02-17 10:54:23	0|Victorsueca|I'm making the depends and it's downloading samba ccache, is that new or it just got updated?
 27 2017-02-17 10:55:26	0|Victorsueca|ffs, it's downloading everything again, not sure why
 28 2017-02-17 10:57:15	0|Victorsueca|I hate building boost
 29 2017-02-17 11:01:55	0|wumpus|building boost should be very quick, at least from depends, we have restricted that to only build the modules and variants that we actually use
 30 2017-02-17 11:02:03	0|wumpus|building qt on the other hand...
 31 2017-02-17 11:02:41	0|wumpus|we have done the same there - select only what we need, but GUI toolkits are beasts
 32 2017-02-17 11:05:51	0|Victorsueca|problem with boost is not nly the time it takes, it's quiet, there's nothing more stressing than that, you don't know if it's still building or it got stuck
 33 2017-02-17 11:08:26	0|wumpus|I'm pretty sure there's a flag to make it verbose, if you want that
 34 2017-02-17 11:42:22	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 143c02b95 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9779: Update nMinimumChainWork and defaultAssumeValid....
 35 2017-02-17 11:42:22	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 143f78e46 15Gregory Maxwell: Update nMinimumChainWork and defaultAssumeValid.
 36 2017-02-17 11:42:22	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/8dee82217708...3c02b957402e
 37 2017-02-17 11:42:46	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9779: Update nMinimumChainWork and defaultAssumeValid. (06master...06update_chainparams) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9779
 38 2017-02-17 11:51:29	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1491fb506 15Alex Morcos: Add two hour buffer to manual pruning
 39 2017-02-17 11:51:29	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3c02b957402e...ad168ef4e308
 40 2017-02-17 11:51:30	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ad168ef 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9778: Add two hour buffer to manual pruning...
 41 2017-02-17 11:51:51	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9778: Add two hour buffer to manual pruning (06master...062hrprune) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9778
 42 2017-02-17 11:54:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 5 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ad168ef4e308...9828f9a9962c
 43 2017-02-17 11:54:06	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 148be0866 15Russell Yanofsky: [qa] Simplify import-rescan.py...
 44 2017-02-17 11:54:06	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c28583d 15Russell Yanofsky: [qa] Extend import-rescan.py to test specific key timestamps
 45 2017-02-17 11:54:07	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1438d3e9e 15Russell Yanofsky: [qa] Extend import-rescan.py to test imports on pruned nodes.
 46 2017-02-17 11:54:25	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9761: Use 2 hour grace period for key timestamps in importmulti rescans (06master...06pr/multigrace) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9761
 47 2017-02-17 13:53:17	0|achow101|don't forget to increment the version number this time :p
 48 2017-02-17 16:19:18	0|wumpus|I don't think I ever forgot that for a major release, just minor releases
 49 2017-02-17 16:24:54	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.14 14bc69f34 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: build: bump version to 0.14.0
 50 2017-02-17 16:24:54	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.14: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/bc69f34b3537a7d34fb7f89b4acd619749bc6cc2
 51 2017-02-17 16:27:53	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f87e8f5 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: build: bump version to 0.14.99...
 52 2017-02-17 16:27:53	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/f87e8f53920adfa80a3f4af9435370dc272c3783
 53 2017-02-17 16:28:47	0|achow101|ooh branching
 54 2017-02-17 16:39:35	0|MarcoFalke_|branch off ''\o/''
 55 2017-02-17 16:40:12	0|wumpus|yep, it's that time of the year
 56 2017-02-17 16:43:39	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.14 14f68e441 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: qt: pre-rc1 translations update
 57 2017-02-17 16:43:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.14: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/f68e4414d77aeb60d8dee1b2e53a195ff15b2c48
 58 2017-02-17 16:47:25	0|MarcoFalke_|I think `gen-manpages.sh` needs to be run on 0.14
 59 2017-02-17 16:48:49	0|wumpus|ok
 60 2017-02-17 16:49:05	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.14 141a02ecc 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Update release notes from wiki
 61 2017-02-17 16:49:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.14: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/1a02ecc73af4b4ac36da1bd04f9e7eddf640e48f
 62 2017-02-17 16:57:38	0|wumpus|will do that in a bit
 63 2017-02-17 17:04:04	0|cfields|did a full gitian build of linux/win/osx as of a few commits ago (afae75fd3da). So far, linux/osx test_bitcoin pass, osx gets reliable rpc test failure: http://pastebin.com/raw/7mgt7jsQ
 64 2017-02-17 17:04:46	0|wumpus|argh
 65 2017-02-17 17:05:50	0|cfields|will re-test from 0.14 after the latest importmulti changes
 66 2017-02-17 17:06:06	0|wumpus|and it doesn't happen with normal build of the same, just gitian?
 67 2017-02-17 17:06:18	0|wumpus|I don't remember that issue on travis so probably
 68 2017-02-17 17:07:12	0|cfields|wumpus: i haven't tried an osx build from the same spot, i'll do that at the same time as the 0.14 rebuild
 69 2017-02-17 17:09:19	0|Arvidt|Is it better for Bitcoin to run a full node, or is it also ok ok to run a pruned node with 100 GiB (-prune=100000) ?
 70 2017-02-17 17:09:50	0|wumpus|when running a pruned node it doesn't matter what the size is, no pruned node will serve blocks
 71 2017-02-17 17:10:44	0|wumpus|so if you want to provide blocks to other nodes that are bootstrapping, you need to run a non-pruned node, at least currently
 72 2017-02-17 17:12:12	0|Arvidt|ok, thanks for the info. There is very few information about pruned mode in the internet, only bitcoiin core release notes and some bitcointalk thread that are two years old.
 73 2017-02-17 17:13:58	0|wumpus|the full node guide mentions pruning as well https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#configuration-tuning  , though it doesn't mention that currently pruned nodes will not serve blocks
 74 2017-02-17 17:14:17	0|wumpus|feel free to add it, most if not all the documents are open source
 75 2017-02-17 17:22:21	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.14 14268c390 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Update manpages for 0.14.0
 76 2017-02-17 17:22:21	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.14: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/268c390d02d99a4a93a0a01221e273d2b9695ff7
 77 2017-02-17 17:24:25	0|cfields|wumpus: local build passes :\. Waiting for gitian built to finish so i can compare.
 78 2017-02-17 17:32:54	0|wumpus|ok, hopefully it was a false positive
 79 2017-02-17 17:33:55	0|cfields|wumpus: yes, that tests passes on 0.14. Still waiting for the whole suite to finish, but looks like a false alarm
 80 2017-02-17 17:34:22	0|achow101|I had an rpc test failing yesterday, I'm checking again now on master to see if it still fails
 81 2017-02-17 17:37:14	0|achow101|yeah, zmq_test.py still fails for me
 82 2017-02-17 17:42:43	0|cfields|ok, all osx pass
 83 2017-02-17 17:44:33	0|cfields|wumpus: need to bump the gitian descriptors if we want separate package caches for 0.13/0.14. Will PR now.
 84 2017-02-17 17:52:02	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15theuni opened pull request #9783: release: bump gitian descriptors for a new 0.14 package cache (060.14...06gitian-descriptor-bump) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9783
 85 2017-02-17 17:56:11	0|Chris_Stewart_5|Will this 'normalize' function in secp256k1 strip uneccessary padding on signatures? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/pubkey.cpp#L183
 86 2017-02-17 17:56:49	0|Chris_Stewart_5|We have a specific test in script_tests.json that pads R values and doesn't require DERSIG flag
 87 2017-02-17 18:13:55	0|wumpus|cfields: I had no idea that we were still using the 0.13 dependencies for master
 88 2017-02-17 18:14:57	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9783: release: bump gitian descriptors for a new 0.14 package cache (060.14...06gitian-descriptor-bump) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9783
 89 2017-02-17 18:15:13	0|cfields|wumpus: it doesn't matter a ton. The chain is hashed and it always grabs the right deps based on the recipe. Splitting just lets you keep them separate, so you can stash 0.13 away if you want, to save time for 0.13.3 build
 90 2017-02-17 18:25:50	0|wumpus|cfields: right
 91 2017-02-17 18:28:15	0|gmaxwell|release notes still say nothing about the massive performance improvements. Shall I write something?
 92 2017-02-17 18:29:17	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.14 14871e19a 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Add list of authors to release notes...
 93 2017-02-17 18:29:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.14: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/871e19ac84ae71b3d22928d5cb3bbf4f0f013b07
 94 2017-02-17 18:29:27	0|wumpus|sure, that'd be very welcome, release notes can be updated until the final release
 95 2017-02-17 18:30:17	0|wumpus|still need to add the big list of changes too
 96 2017-02-17 18:32:55	0|cfields|gmaxwell: i started to a few days ago but got distracted. I'm unsure if we want to just add a "performance increases" section and add a bunch of stuff, or add individual features and mention what they speed up
 97 2017-02-17 18:33:29	0|gmaxwell|Perfmrnace increases with a line per improvement might be nice.
 98 2017-02-17 18:34:40	0|cfields|gmaxwell: works for me. Have you already started, or shall I?
 99 2017-02-17 18:35:18	0|gmaxwell|Go ahead.  Hm. I thought I wrote release notes for assume valid.
100 2017-02-17 18:35:57	0|gmaxwell|that certantly should be release noted, esp as someone might feel its a security model change (at least without the explination)
101 2017-02-17 18:36:40	0|gmaxwell|oh  Idid and it was just all removed. :(
102 2017-02-17 18:36:51	0|cfields|gmaxwell: sure, and imo it goes under performance improvements. Not sure if that's what you were implying. But to an end-user, that's surely the benefit
103 2017-02-17 18:37:45	0|gmaxwell|It is a performance improvement but unless explained it could be understood as a significant security model change.
104 2017-02-17 18:37:57	0|gmaxwell|Can someone please explain to me why the release note for that was removed?
105 2017-02-17 18:38:06	0|wumpus|what was removed? you should edit the release notes in 0.14, not on master
106 2017-02-17 18:38:15	0|wumpus|master was completely cleaned out
107 2017-02-17 18:38:39	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: doing that means that changes that write their release notes get their notes nuked.
108 2017-02-17 18:38:52	0|sipa|gmaxwell: ?
109 2017-02-17 18:39:07	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: this has been the case for every major release
110 2017-02-17 18:39:10	0|sipa|things that are merged in 0.14 have their notes in 0.14
111 2017-02-17 18:39:18	0|wumpus|0.14 is branched off, master is 0.15 now
112 2017-02-17 18:39:36	0|gmaxwell|The releas enote was removed for 0.14
113 2017-02-17 18:39:38	0|gmaxwell|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/1a02ecc73af4b4ac36da1bd04f9e7eddf640e48f#diff-ef76fd6674f07db88c3422fdbf0bcf9fL79
114 2017-02-17 18:39:56	0|sipa|ah, update from the wiki
115 2017-02-17 18:40:04	0|gmaxwell|so was  -0.14.0 Fundrawtransaction change address reuse
116 2017-02-17 18:40:15	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: wasn't that just moved somewhere else?
117 2017-02-17 18:40:35	0|achow101|the problem was that some things got into the release notes in the repo, and others were in the wiki
118 2017-02-17 18:40:36	0|wumpus|it's in the wrong place after all, in the section reserved for PRs
119 2017-02-17 18:41:01	0|wumpus|so my assumption was that it was moved upwards, but if it got removed it should be added back (in the right place)
120 2017-02-17 18:41:18	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: it was in the notable changes section, and no it's nowhere mentioned in the release notes now.
121 2017-02-17 18:41:27	0|wumpus|ok, re-add it then
122 2017-02-17 18:42:07	0|gmaxwell|At least I know what happened now!
123 2017-02-17 18:42:25	0|gmaxwell|I think we do want changes writing their own release notes, no? we'll just need to figure out how to merge that with the wiki.
124 2017-02-17 18:42:29	0|gmaxwell|(in the future)
125 2017-02-17 18:43:00	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: I apparently missed that when merging changes from the wiki; I saw some stuff was removed, but Ithought it were just the items in the wrong place that were merged back
126 2017-02-17 18:43:15	0|wumpus|in the future we should pay attention to changes, just like you did now, good job
127 2017-02-17 18:43:18	0|wumpus|:)
128 2017-02-17 18:48:38	0|cfields|sipa / gmaxwell: any notable perf improvements from libsecp256k1 for 0.14? I'm hazy on the timeline
129 2017-02-17 18:51:38	0|sipa|cfields: no, i don't think so
130 2017-02-17 18:52:01	0|cfields|ok, thanks
131 2017-02-17 18:52:35	0|cfields|ah, docs need ctaes reference
132 2017-02-17 18:52:54	0|sipa|oh, was ctaes new for 0.14?
133 2017-02-17 18:53:33	0|gmaxwell|No.
134 2017-02-17 18:55:16	0|cfields|huh, seemed recent
135 2017-02-17 18:55:58	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15gmaxwell opened pull request #9784: Restore removed release notes. (060.14...06release_notes) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9784
136 2017-02-17 18:56:09	0|cfields|yep, present in 0.13.0. nm.
137 2017-02-17 18:56:25	0|gmaxwell|I don't know if we ever release noted. :)
138 2017-02-17 18:57:19	0|cfields|jus this: - #7689 `b89ef13` Replace OpenSSL AES with ctaes-based version (sipa)
139 2017-02-17 18:57:22	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7689 | Replace OpenSSL AES with ctaes-based version by sipa · Pull Request #7689 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
140 2017-02-17 18:58:07	0|wumpus|is it something that affects end users much?
141 2017-02-17 18:58:18	0|gmaxwell|yea, kinda sad because that was a relly impressive work.
142 2017-02-17 18:58:47	0|gmaxwell|a secondary purpose of release notes, its also a communication channel about what we're doing.
143 2017-02-17 18:58:54	0|gmaxwell|(and interesting to)
144 2017-02-17 18:59:16	0|gmaxwell|the only effect on users was that it avoided some build problems with openssl api changes that some people expirenced later.
145 2017-02-17 18:59:27	0|wumpus|the release notes for 0.13 were already huge, if there are too many notable changes no one is going to read everything
146 2017-02-17 18:59:45	0|wumpus|I think it's fine to not add a specific paragraph for everything
147 2017-02-17 19:00:42	0|wumpus|i'm certainly in favor of publishing awesome developer changes in bitcoin core, but I'm not sure the release notes is the right place for that
148 2017-02-17 19:00:53	0|wumpus|a tech blog on bitcoincore.org would be nice
149 2017-02-17 19:00:55	0|gmaxwell|That is fair too.
150 2017-02-17 19:01:08	0|gmaxwell|But who has the time?
151 2017-02-17 19:01:33	0|wumpus|well if you'd have the time to add it to the release notes, you'd also have time to write a blog post, those are equivalent time-wise
152 2017-02-17 19:02:22	0|gmaxwell|release note would have been one/two paragraphs, would make for a kind of lame blogpost. :P
153 2017-02-17 19:02:41	0|wumpus|brg444 did a nice writeup on bitcoin core performance improvements
154 2017-02-17 19:02:48	0|gmaxwell|but there could be summary posts, I suppose with things that weren't important enough to usage to go into the release notes.
155 2017-02-17 19:02:50	0|wumpus|why? not everything needs to be a long story
156 2017-02-17 19:03:03	0|wumpus|short, frequent updates are good too
157 2017-02-17 19:03:41	0|Chris_Stewart_5|The Chronicles of Bitcoin Core (TM)
158 2017-02-17 19:03:51	0|gmaxwell|I hope he hasn't published that yet, it didn't have measurement last I saw and was weaker without it... unfortunately it takes so long to sync with older versions it takes a while to get numbers! :)
159 2017-02-17 19:05:38	0|wumpus|I don't think he has, but I like that it puts everything into context
160 2017-02-17 19:05:43	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: Thanks, good points.
161 2017-02-17 19:06:11	0|gmaxwell|Yea, I saw a draft too... I should check again, it was missing a bunch of stuff but I bet he's added it now.
162 2017-02-17 19:24:09	0|gmaxwell|We have two stack protector not protecting compiler warnings on 0.14 branch, might want to consider fixing in the next RC if they're trivial fixes.
163 2017-02-17 19:25:09	0|cfields|gmaxwell: ah, nice. I've been trying to figure out how to state the net performance improvements in a meaningful way. Full IBD from before/after seems pretty reasonable.
164 2017-02-17 19:25:16	0|wumpus|what causes those?
165 2017-02-17 19:25:49	0|wumpus|and I don't think I've ever seen those warnings, what gcc/clang gives them?
166 2017-02-17 19:25:56	0|gmaxwell|"running newer compilers" :P
167 2017-02-17 19:25:58	0|gmaxwell|httprpc.cpp: In function ‘bool HTTPReq_JSONRPC(HTTPRequest*, const string&)’:
168 2017-02-17 19:26:01	0|gmaxwell|httprpc.cpp:150:13: warning: stack protector not protecting local variables: variable length buffer [-Wstack-protector] static bool HTTPReq_JSONRPC(HTTPRequest* req, const std::string &)
169 2017-02-17 19:26:16	0|gmaxwell|qt/test/paymentservertests.cpp: In member function ‘void PaymentServerTests::paymentServerTests()’:
170 2017-02-17 19:26:19	0|gmaxwell|qt/test/paymentservertests.cpp:65:6: warning: stack protector not protecting local variables: variable length buffer [-Wstack-protector]
171 2017-02-17 19:26:22	0|gmaxwell|void PaymentServerTests::paymentServerTests()
172 2017-02-17 19:26:24	0|gmaxwell|^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
173 2017-02-17 19:26:27	0|wumpus|oh in the tests in not important
174 2017-02-17 19:26:43	0|gmaxwell|first one isn't in tests. httprpc.
175 2017-02-17 19:27:12	0|gmaxwell|anyways anyone running more recent gcc will get them. (I don't know how recent is required, but 6.3.0 has them)
176 2017-02-17 19:27:13	0|wumpus|variable-length buffer on the stack in httprpc/!
177 2017-02-17 19:27:23	0|gmaxwell|thats what it appears to be reporting!
178 2017-02-17 19:27:30	0|wumpus|where?
179 2017-02-17 19:27:42	0|sipa|i don't see it!
180 2017-02-17 19:27:44	0|wumpus|didn't even know that was possible in c++
181 2017-02-17 19:27:50	0|sipa|it is
182 2017-02-17 19:28:06	0|gmaxwell|well C++11 IIRC added optional VLA.
183 2017-02-17 19:28:11	0|gmaxwell|static bool HTTPReq_JSONRPC(HTTPRequest* req, const std::string &)
184 2017-02-17 19:28:11	0|gmaxwell|this is what it reports:
185 2017-02-17 19:28:12	0|gmaxwell|^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
186 2017-02-17 19:28:34	0|gmaxwell|which made no sense to me but I figured there was some kind of over-my-head c++ magic happening.
187 2017-02-17 19:28:38	0|luke-jr|I get them with 4.9.4
188 2017-02-17 19:29:07	0|wumpus|I'm fairly sure I didn't *intend* that when writing that code at least
189 2017-02-17 19:29:17	0|wumpus|so I'm curious
190 2017-02-17 19:29:38	0|gmaxwell|I agree the test isn't so important, but the users compiling seeing warnings isn't ideal. Certantly lower priority.
191 2017-02-17 19:29:45	0|wumpus|I also think it's strange it comes up now
192 2017-02-17 19:29:55	0|sipa|i've seen that warning for months, at least
193 2017-02-17 19:29:58	0|wumpus|shouldn't that warning have been there for ages?
194 2017-02-17 19:30:22	0|gmaxwell|it's been there for a while but I ignore warnings in master because they're usually eliminated before release, didn't realize that most other people weren't seeing it.
195 2017-02-17 19:30:22	0|wumpus|oh and you just mention it now just before a release, ok :/
196 2017-02-17 19:30:36	0|gmaxwell|Actually I have mentioned it once before.
197 2017-02-17 19:30:48	0|gmaxwell|but I thought everyone else was seeing it too.
198 2017-02-17 19:31:07	0|gmaxwell|Sorry.
199 2017-02-17 19:31:17	0|sipa|building from scratch with 6.2.0 now, i'll report the warnings i get
200 2017-02-17 19:31:29	0|sipa|/usr/bin/ar: `u' modifier ignored since `D' is the default (see `U')
201 2017-02-17 19:31:32	0|wumpus|I don't think it's a big deal but I want to know what is causing a variable sized buffer there
202 2017-02-17 19:31:37	0|sipa|httprpc.cpp: In function ‘bool HTTPReq_JSONRPC(HTTPRequest*, const string&)’:
203 2017-02-17 19:31:39	0|sipa|httprpc.cpp:150:13: warning: stack protector not protecting local variables: variable length buffer [-Wstack-protector]
204 2017-02-17 19:31:42	0|sipa|static bool HTTPReq_JSONRPC(HTTPRequest* req, const std::string &)
205 2017-02-17 19:31:45	0|sipa|^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
206 2017-02-17 19:31:50	0|wumpus|variable-sized buffers on the stack are usually a code stink
207 2017-02-17 19:32:06	0|wumpus|honestly I thought the practice died in the 90's
208 2017-02-17 19:32:30	0|sipa|(several more 'u' modifier warnings)
209 2017-02-17 19:32:35	0|jonasschnelli|I think we should mention the AES change there...
210 2017-02-17 19:32:46	0|jonasschnelli|(in the release notes)
211 2017-02-17 19:32:46	0|wumpus|yes the modfifier warnings are well-known, there's an issue open for those IIRC
212 2017-02-17 19:32:49	0|gmaxwell|jonasschnelli: what aes change?
213 2017-02-17 19:33:13	0|jonasschnelli|Sorry,.. I hadn't scrolled down...
214 2017-02-17 19:33:18	0|gmaxwell|:P
215 2017-02-17 19:33:24	0|sipa|jonasschnelli, wumpus, gmaxwell: how about we first move all the AES mode of operation code into ctaes (it's currently in crypto/aes.cpp), and then write a blog post about ctaes in general
216 2017-02-17 19:33:27	0|jonasschnelli|I just saw a discussion about ctaes
217 2017-02-17 19:33:39	0|sipa|/usr/include/boost/type_traits/detail/bool_trait_def.hpp:18:78: note: #pragma message: NOTE: Use of this header (bool_trait_def.hpp) is deprecated
218 2017-02-17 19:33:42	0|sipa|# pragma message("NOTE: Use of this header (bool_trait_def.hpp) is deprecated")
219 2017-02-17 19:33:55	0|sipa|leveldb/db/memtable.cc: In member function ‘void leveldb::MemTable::Add(leveldb::SequenceNumber, leveldb::ValueType, const leveldb::Slice&, const leveldb::Slice&)’:
220 2017-02-17 19:33:58	0|sipa|leveldb/db/memtable.cc:104:23: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions [-Wsign-compare]
221 2017-02-17 19:34:01	0|sipa|assert((p + val_size) - buf == encoded_len);
222 2017-02-17 19:34:07	0|wumpus|yes, there are a few warnings in boost, those depend on the boost version
223 2017-02-17 19:34:15	0|cfields|heh, i have a fix for the deprecated boost thing. Will PR in a few min.
224 2017-02-17 19:34:15	0|wumpus|there's also warnings in leveldb those need to be fixed upstream
225 2017-02-17 19:34:32	0|cfields|sipa: i did a cbc ctaes over the weekend, just need to get it cleaned up
226 2017-02-17 19:34:37	0|wumpus|sipa: sounds good to me
227 2017-02-17 19:35:17	0|cfields|sipa: out of curiosity, does the rpc warning go away if you make the function non-static ?
228 2017-02-17 19:36:19	0|gmaxwell|cfields: no.
229 2017-02-17 19:36:36	0|sipa|cfields: no
230 2017-02-17 19:36:43	0|cfields|ok, thanks
231 2017-02-17 19:36:52	0|gmaxwell|I am bisecting its code.
232 2017-02-17 19:37:44	0|jonasschnelli|Hmm.. I once extended ctaes to do cbc (if that is of interest)
233 2017-02-17 19:37:44	0|jonasschnelli|https://github.com/shiftdevices/libshiftdevices/blob/master/src/aes256_cbc.c
234 2017-02-17 19:38:01	0|sipa|hah
235 2017-02-17 19:38:10	0|sipa|there are at least 3 people who have already done that it seems
236 2017-02-17 19:38:15	0|sipa|and nobody upstreamed it!
237 2017-02-17 19:38:34	0|cfields|heh
238 2017-02-17 19:39:26	0|cfields|sipa: i didn't like the api i came up with, planned to revisit before upstreaming
239 2017-02-17 19:39:42	0|jonasschnelli|I wanted to upstream.
240 2017-02-17 19:40:00	0|wumpus|haha!
241 2017-02-17 19:40:14	0|sipa|i found the httprpc thing
242 2017-02-17 19:40:35	0|sipa|it's the out[KEY_SIZE] in multiuserauthorized
243 2017-02-17 19:40:43	0|gmaxwell|damn I type too slow.
244 2017-02-17 19:40:48	0|wumpus|KEY_SIZE is not a constant?
245 2017-02-17 19:41:05	0|sipa|marking it const fixes it
246 2017-02-17 19:41:11	0|wumpus|damn, good catch
247 2017-02-17 19:41:28	0|gmaxwell|unsigned char out[KEY_SIZE];
248 2017-02-17 19:41:28	0|gmaxwell|unsigned int KEY_SIZE = 32;
249 2017-02-17 19:41:47	0|wumpus|next time you see that warning please raise an alarm immediately
250 2017-02-17 19:41:51	0|gmaxwell|I wish the compiler had flags to disable language features.
251 2017-02-17 19:42:23	0|gmaxwell|I'll open an issue, I did mention it on IRC.
252 2017-02-17 19:42:29	0|gmaxwell|(if it happens again!)
253 2017-02-17 19:42:36	0|cfields|gmaxwell: -Wvla
254 2017-02-17 19:42:44	0|cfields|i think that should catch it?
255 2017-02-17 19:42:44	0|gmaxwell|oh, lol.
256 2017-02-17 19:43:34	0|cfields|specifically, -Werror=vla
257 2017-02-17 19:43:35	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #9785: Make KEY_SIZE a compile-time constant (06master...06constkeysize) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9785
258 2017-02-17 19:43:42	0|wumpus|cfields: let's do that
259 2017-02-17 19:44:06	0|wumpus|I'm not usually for disabling language features, but I can see no good coming out of this one
260 2017-02-17 19:44:20	0|cfields|wumpus: sounds good. There was another case like that a while back wrt hashing, I guess that was fixed at one point
261 2017-02-17 19:44:35	0|gmaxwell|that one seems safe but we should be very cautious about werror... compilers change warning detection all the time and then crap won't compile for users.
262 2017-02-17 19:44:39	0|cfields|sipa / gmaxwell: can you comment on whether -Werror=vla blows up on the old code?
263 2017-02-17 19:44:50	0|sipa|cfields: let's check
264 2017-02-17 19:44:57	0|wumpus|especially if it silently makes functions vulnerable by disabling the stack cookie
265 2017-02-17 19:45:08	0|cfields|gmaxwell: Werror= allows you to only error on specific warnings
266 2017-02-17 19:45:08	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: agreed, Werror certainly shouldn't be enabled generally
267 2017-02-17 19:45:18	0|gmaxwell|VLAs aren't so bad... they have good uses, but I agree we shouldn't have them in our codebase.
268 2017-02-17 19:45:33	0|gmaxwell|cfields: yes but many warnings change their behavior. As I said, vla sounds safe.
269 2017-02-17 19:45:58	0|gmaxwell|but many other warnings change their specific triggers from version to version.
270 2017-02-17 19:46:01	0|sipa|$ ./configure --with-incompatible-bdb --without-gui CXXFLAGS="-Wall -Wpedantic -Werror=vla -g3 -O2"
271 2017-02-17 19:46:01	0|wumpus|this one is specific enough
272 2017-02-17 19:46:21	0|sipa|ok, i do not want -Wpedantic
273 2017-02-17 19:47:22	0|gmaxwell|httprpc.cpp: In function ‘bool multiUserAuthorized(std::__cxx11::string)’:
274 2017-02-17 19:47:25	0|gmaxwell|httprpc.cpp:116:39: error: variable length array ‘out’ is used [-Werror=vla]
275 2017-02-17 19:47:28	0|gmaxwell|unsigned char out[KEY_SIZE];
276 2017-02-17 19:47:31	0|gmaxwell|^
277 2017-02-17 19:47:43	0|cfields|I remember this one getting snagged as a vla at one point: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/hash.h#L30
278 2017-02-17 19:47:57	0|cfields|i think that may be up to the compiler.
279 2017-02-17 19:48:12	0|gmaxwell|qt/test/paymentservertests.cpp: In member function ‘void PaymentServerTests::paymentServerTests()’:
280 2017-02-17 19:48:16	0|gmaxwell|qt/test/paymentservertests.cpp:181:61: error: variable length array ‘randData’ is used [-Werror=vla]
281 2017-02-17 19:48:17	0|cfields|er sorry, 2 lines up
282 2017-02-17 19:48:18	0|gmaxwell|unsigned char randData[BIP70_MAX_PAYMENTREQUEST_SIZE + 1];
283 2017-02-17 19:48:21	0|gmaxwell|^
284 2017-02-17 19:49:28	0|gmaxwell|with those two things fixed it compiles cleanly with that Werror=vla.
285 2017-02-17 19:51:10	0|wumpus|would be good to include the paymentrequest change in https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9785 too
286 2017-02-17 19:51:44	0|cfields|yes, clang still dislikes the one in hash.h
287 2017-02-17 19:53:30	0|wumpus|hm, a static field that is addressed as a non-static field
288 2017-02-17 19:54:09	0|wumpus|if you make that CSHA256::OUTPUT_SIZE I'm fairly sure the warning goes away?
289 2017-02-17 19:54:26	0|cfields|wumpus: yep
290 2017-02-17 19:55:39	0|sipa|what if you make it just OUTPUT_SIZE ?
291 2017-02-17 19:56:13	0|cfields|sipa: works for one, breaks for ripemd
292 2017-02-17 19:56:25	0|cfields|pr coming up
293 2017-02-17 19:56:38	0|sipa|already on it
294 2017-02-17 19:56:43	0|cfields|race!
295 2017-02-17 19:56:51	0|wumpus|if you make it just OUTPUT_SIZE the meaning changes
296 2017-02-17 19:57:02	0|sipa|indeed
297 2017-02-17 19:57:05	0|wumpus|though if the numbers are the same anyway it doesn't matter
298 2017-02-17 19:57:09	0|sipa|it needs to be CSHA256::OUTPUT_SIZE
299 2017-02-17 19:58:07	0|cfields|http://pastebin.com/raw/u5uG8PbE
300 2017-02-17 19:58:08	0|cfields|no?
301 2017-02-17 20:00:51	0|sipa|my battery just died
302 2017-02-17 20:01:01	0|btcdrak|RIP
303 2017-02-17 20:01:13	0|sipa|the PR also has the paymentprotocol change, but I didn't tedt
304 2017-02-17 20:01:16	0|cfields|0.14: destroyer of PSUs and batteries
305 2017-02-17 20:01:16	0|sipa|*test
306 2017-02-17 20:01:29	0|sipa|s/died/ran out/
307 2017-02-17 20:04:18	0|achow101|When did 0.14 destroy a PSU?
308 2017-02-17 20:05:28	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15theuni opened pull request #9786: boost: remove iostreams includes (06master...06no-iostreams) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9786
309 2017-02-17 20:06:01	0|wumpus|achow101: mine, earlier today
310 2017-02-17 20:06:12	0|wumpus|while building w/ gitian, not while running it, mind you
311 2017-02-17 20:07:19	0|cfields|^^ should get rid of the "NOTE: Use of this header (bool_trait_def.hpp) is deprecated")"
312 2017-02-17 20:08:06	0|achow101|wumpus: lol
313 2017-02-17 20:34:07	0|achow101|is the tag still happening today?
314 2017-02-17 20:37:53	0|cfields|wumpus: would you like release notes additions PR'd directly to 0.14, i assume?
315 2017-02-17 20:41:22	0|wumpus|achow101: yes, in a minute
316 2017-02-17 20:41:38	0|luke-jr|"Out-of-sync Modal Info Layer" looks like something that can be removed from release notes to trim it down
317 2017-02-17 20:41:43	0|wumpus|cfields: yes, editing the wiki has little sense now, we should probaly add a warning there
318 2017-02-17 20:41:53	0|cfields|ok
319 2017-02-17 20:44:40	0|luke-jr|" - After resetting the options by clicking the `Reset Options` button in the options dialog or with the `-resetguioptions` startup option, the user will be prompted to choose the data directory again. This  is to ensure that custom data directories will be kept after the  option reset which clears the custom data directory set via the choose  datadir dialog."
320 2017-02-17 20:44:52	0|luke-jr|^ where did this change happen? I don't see any code for this behaviour
321 2017-02-17 20:45:25	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.14 146187091 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: doc: Add changelog for 0.14.0 to release notes
322 2017-02-17 20:45:25	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 1 new commit to 060.14: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/618709141147f74771da0795cf0dccb47c606d24
323 2017-02-17 20:45:44	0|wumpus|going to pull in the warning changes and then tag
324 2017-02-17 20:46:12	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15theuni opened pull request #9787: [WIP] release: add a few performance-related notes (060.14...06update-release-notes) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9787
325 2017-02-17 20:46:20	0|cfields|^^ just intended to be a starting point
326 2017-02-17 20:47:05	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.14 1404396bc 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9784: Restore removed release notes....
327 2017-02-17 20:47:05	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.14 141577f07 15Gregory Maxwell: Restore removed release notes.
328 2017-02-17 20:47:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 060.14: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/618709141147...04396bcc058e
329 2017-02-17 20:47:21	0|cfields|sipa: are you PRing the hash changes? Or did those die with your battery?
330 2017-02-17 20:48:27	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f87e8f53920a...df42bcdbfebe
331 2017-02-17 20:48:28	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14914fad1 15Pieter Wuille: Make KEY_SIZE a compile-time constant
332 2017-02-17 20:48:28	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14c801c82 15Pieter Wuille: Move BIP70_MAX_PAYMENTREQUEST_SIZE to header
333 2017-02-17 20:48:29	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14df42bcd 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9785: Avoid variable length arrays...
334 2017-02-17 20:48:51	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9785: Avoid variable length arrays (06master...06constkeysize) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9785
335 2017-02-17 20:49:00	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1412f46fa 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9786: boost: remove iostreams includes...
336 2017-02-17 20:49:00	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 143301587 15Cory Fields: boost: remove iostreams includes...
337 2017-02-17 20:49:00	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/df42bcdbfebe...12f46fa7d87d
338 2017-02-17 20:49:22	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #9786: boost: remove iostreams includes (06master...06no-iostreams) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9786
339 2017-02-17 20:51:15	0|sipa|cfields: oops, right, will do
340 2017-02-17 20:51:16	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 060.14: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/04396bcc058e...2afefeade6e6
341 2017-02-17 20:51:17	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.14 14973e345 15Pieter Wuille: Move BIP70_MAX_PAYMENTREQUEST_SIZE to header...
342 2017-02-17 20:51:17	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.14 14f873564 15Pieter Wuille: Make KEY_SIZE a compile-time constant...
343 2017-02-17 20:51:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/060.14 142afefea 15Cory Fields: boost: remove iostreams includes...
344 2017-02-17 20:54:40	0|wumpus|luke-jr: was that message added at the same time as the change, or later?
345 2017-02-17 20:55:29	0|wumpus|luke-jr: seems to be #8487
346 2017-02-17 20:55:32	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8487 | Persist the datadir after option reset by achow101 · Pull Request #8487 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
347 2017-02-17 20:55:43	0|luke-jr|but that's the opposite?
348 2017-02-17 20:56:03	0|wumpus|I'm not aware of any other changes there (and log -p confirms this)
349 2017-02-17 20:56:43	0|luke-jr|oh, does it preserve *and* reprompt? :o
350 2017-02-17 20:58:09	0|wumpus|anyhow, time to tag
351 2017-02-17 20:59:19	0|sipa|ack tag
352 2017-02-17 20:59:40	0|jonasschnelli|\O/
353 2017-02-17 20:59:56	0|wumpus|* [new tag]         v0.14.0rc1 -> v0.14.0rc1
354 2017-02-17 21:00:28	0|sipa|\o/ \\o o//
355 2017-02-17 21:01:02	0|wumpus|\\o//
356 2017-02-17 21:01:26	0|cfields|woohoo!
357 2017-02-17 21:01:28	0|sipa|you have 4 arms? that explains!
358 2017-02-17 21:01:50	0|wumpus|if only :)
359 2017-02-17 21:02:56	0|gmaxwell|that symbol is a tutrle on its back.
360 2017-02-17 21:02:58	0|wumpus|gitian will probably have to rebuild all dependencies as the gitian-depends version was bumped
361 2017-02-17 21:02:59	0|gmaxwell|flip him over!
362 2017-02-17 21:03:03	0|jonasschnelli|heh
363 2017-02-17 21:03:54	0|achow101|\o/
364 2017-02-17 21:03:55	0|wumpus|cfields: we should not forget to bump the depends version to 0.15 on master as soon as possible so that we don't have this problem next time
365 2017-02-17 21:04:07	0|cfields|wumpus: indeed. I'm cheating and symlinking for now.
366 2017-02-17 21:04:48	0|cfields|will PR that in just a min.
367 2017-02-17 21:04:50	0|wumpus|yeah I thought about that too, but I'm not doing that, want to be sure to get the right output
368 2017-02-17 21:05:51	0|wumpus|I'd be the person to symlink the wrong directory then get a wrong executable, spend hours debugging that, and lose a lot of time compared to... simply rebuilding everything :p
369 2017-02-17 21:05:58	0|achow101|luke-jr: it preserves and reprompts the datadir
370 2017-02-17 21:05:58	0|jonasschnelli|Can you just gpg sign the gitian assets file on a different machine? No need for the descriptor, right?
371 2017-02-17 21:06:37	0|wumpus|jonasschnelli: yes, see "signing externally" in gitian-building.md
372 2017-02-17 21:07:41	0|jonasschnelli|wumpus: Thanks... great.. wasn't aware of that doc part
373 2017-02-17 21:08:11	0|instagibbs|nice work :)
374 2017-02-17 21:08:32	0|wumpus|you can also pass -p true to gsign to make it skip the call to gpg complately
375 2017-02-17 21:09:18	0|wumpus|but it doesn't matter whether you do that or let the gpg call fail, it's the last statement in gsign, in both cases you can copy the unsigned assert file and detach-sign it yourself
376 2017-02-17 21:10:29	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15theuni opened pull request #9788: gitian: bump descriptors for master (06master...06gitian-bump-0.15) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9788
377 2017-02-17 21:14:27	0|wumpus|reddit, what's that :)
378 2017-02-17 21:20:47	0|instagibbs|having issues with configure on rc1:
379 2017-02-17 21:20:49	0|instagibbs|x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
380 2017-02-17 21:20:56	0|instagibbs|checking build system type... x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
381 2017-02-17 21:20:56	0|instagibbs|checking host system type... x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
382 2017-02-17 21:20:56	0|instagibbs|./configure: line 2455: `AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE(no-define subdir-objects foreign)'
383 2017-02-17 21:20:56	0|instagibbs|./configure: line 2455: syntax error near unexpected token `no-define'
384 2017-02-17 21:21:23	0|wumpus|instagibbs: see #bitcoin
385 2017-02-17 21:21:26	0|achow101|works fine for me
386 2017-02-17 21:21:43	0|instagibbs|wumpus, not unless it recently was removed, it's on a dev machine :P
387 2017-02-17 21:21:48	0|wumpus|no need to cross-post
388 2017-02-17 21:22:02	0|instagibbs|eh, I tried asking, got nothing, then came here
389 2017-02-17 21:22:03	0|instagibbs|sorry
390 2017-02-17 21:28:48	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15theuni opened pull request #9789: build: disallow variable length arrays (06master...06no-vla) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9789
391 2017-02-17 21:38:42	0|cfields|gmaxwell: i wonder if that vla was throwing off your sanitizer. didn't you have something reported from rpc code?
392 2017-02-17 21:47:14	0|sipa|i'm running master as of a few hours ago, plus my sanitize fixes, on bitcoin.sipa.be, with tsan and ubsan enabled
393 2017-02-17 22:05:39	0|cfields|sipa: ah, nice
394 2017-02-17 22:09:50	0|gmaxwell|cfields: I don't know why it would.
395 2017-02-17 22:40:36	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15luke-jr opened pull request #9790: doc/release-notes: Various cleanups (060.14...060.14-relnotes) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9790
396 2017-02-17 22:52:33	0|achow101|first!
397 2017-02-17 23:29:30	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15sipa opened pull request #9791: Avoid VLA in hash.h (06master...06novla) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9791
398 2017-02-17 23:37:07	0|gmaxwell|the CLANG vs GCC  VLA warning on hash.h is an example of why we should -Wvla but not error on it.
399 2017-02-17 23:37:59	0|sipa|gmaxwell: from investigating briefly, it seems that VLAs are standard in C99 but optional in C11. They're not specified in C++ or C++11.
400 2017-02-17 23:42:29	0|gmaxwell|Apparently their analog is in C++14, std::dynarray and "runtime sized arrays" (exactly the same syntax as VLA but: sizeof works, and they can't be multidimensional)
401 2017-02-17 23:43:02	0|luke-jr|eh? sizeof works with C99 VLAs..
402 2017-02-17 23:43:28	0|luke-jr|or is that a GNU extension?
403 2017-02-17 23:45:03	0|gmaxwell|luke-jr: sorry, I wasn't clear, I was saying that it does not work in the C++14 spec.
404 2017-02-17 23:45:14	0|luke-jr|oh
405 2017-02-17 23:47:36	0|sipa|luke-jr: i've noticed that too
406 2017-02-17 23:48:06	0|sipa|in past times, it seems "Qt" was even understood to refer to the bitcoin core program name
407 2017-02-17 23:48:27	0|gmaxwell|it's kind of confusing in any case. like... "information no one ever wants"
408 2017-02-17 23:48:51	0|luke-jr|other Qt apps used to have it, but I don't think many (if any) do anymore
409 2017-02-17 23:49:06	0|luke-jr|in KDE apps, it's just "About <app>" and "About KDE"
410 2017-02-17 23:52:11	0|achow101|I thought it was required as part of the license that Qt uses
411 2017-02-17 23:52:22	0|achow101|(that might be wrong info)
412 2017-02-17 23:53:13	0|gmaxwell|nope.