1 2018-06-07 01:50:28	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15lucash-dev closed pull request #13050: [tests] improvements to slow unit tests (06master...06slow-unit-tests-improvement) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13050
  2 2018-06-07 01:51:10	0|promag|MarcoFalke: #13230 needs rebase tag?
  3 2018-06-07 01:51:13	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13230 | Simplify include analysis by enforcing the developer guides include syntax by practicalswift · Pull Request #13230 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
  4 2018-06-07 02:13:48	0|fanquake|promag it looks ok to me?
  5 2018-06-07 02:15:09	0|fanquake|MarcoFalke is your bot on GH somewhere?
  6 2018-06-07 06:47:29	0|promag|wumpus: #13394 done
  7 2018-06-07 06:47:31	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13394 | cli: Ignore libevent warnings by theuni · Pull Request #13394 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
  8 2018-06-07 06:50:18	0|wumpus|promag: thanks!
  9 2018-06-07 06:52:59	0|promag|cfields: +1
 10 2018-06-07 06:56:10	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 140a4ea2f 15practicalswift: build: Add linter for checking accidental locale dependence
 11 2018-06-07 06:56:10	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14698cfd0 15practicalswift: docs: Mention lint-locale-dependence.sh in developer-notes.md
 12 2018-06-07 06:56:10	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 3 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e4082d59f53d...5779dc4f76ad
 13 2018-06-07 06:56:11	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 145779dc4 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #13041: build: Add linter checking for accidental introduction of locale dependence...
 14 2018-06-07 06:56:51	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #13041: build: Add linter checking for accidental introduction of locale dependence (06master...06lint-locale-dependence) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13041
 15 2018-06-07 06:58:41	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 140231ef6 15Cory Fields: cli: Ignore libevent warnings
 16 2018-06-07 06:58:41	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/5779dc4f76ad...e1f8dce9939a
 17 2018-06-07 06:58:42	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e1f8dce 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #13394: cli: Ignore libevent warnings...
 18 2018-06-07 06:59:26	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #13394: cli: Ignore libevent warnings (06master...06cli-event) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13394
 19 2018-06-07 07:13:38	0|kallewoof|cfields: are you able to debug using lldb on mac? even with ./configure --enable-debug and make clean I get 'optimized', which is because it puts in -O2. Despite --enable-debug.
 20 2018-06-07 07:19:00	0|wumpus|anyhow, going to tag rc2
 21 2018-06-07 07:20:26	0|wumpus|* [new tag]                                                                           v0.16.1rc2 -> v0.16.1rc2
 22 2018-06-07 08:34:05	0|sipa|w00t
 23 2018-06-07 08:41:44	0|fanquake|wumpus If you're still here, #13369 can go in
 24 2018-06-07 08:41:46	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13369 | [docs] update transifex doc link by mess110 · Pull Request #13369 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
 25 2018-06-07 09:36:22	0|wumpus|fanquake: ack
 26 2018-06-07 09:37:55	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e1f8dce9939a...f8bcef38fb9b
 27 2018-06-07 09:37:56	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142b30ccc 15Cristian Mircea Messel: [docs] update transifex doc link
 28 2018-06-07 09:37:57	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14f8bcef3 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #13369: [docs] update transifex doc link...
 29 2018-06-07 09:38:36	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #13369: [docs] update transifex doc link (06master...06fix_transifex_doc_link) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13369
 30 2018-06-07 10:35:51	0|rafalcpp|no one ported the github-merge.py script to support gitlab?
 31 2018-06-07 10:38:12	0|wumpus|not that I know
 32 2018-06-07 10:39:04	0|wumpus|i'd guess that they have similar APIs, and it's just a matter of tweaking some things
 33 2018-06-07 10:40:18	0|wumpus|huh, test_runner stopped printing progress dots here
 34 2018-06-07 10:42:46	0|rafalcpp|API differs, and they do not want to write compatiblity layer. But probably allows same needed functions
 35 2018-06-07 10:45:03	0|wumpus|oh it still prints ".", but it looks like it takes a lot longer to initially generate the cache
 36 2018-06-07 11:00:50	0|wumpus|(ok, can't bisect it either, must be something that changed locally in the environment here)
 37 2018-06-07 11:05:55	0|wumpus|rafalcpp: yes, I did not mean to imply it would be an exact mapping
 38 2018-06-07 11:07:14	0|wumpus|rafalcpp: looking at it, it does only use one call from the gh api, the one to get PR information
 39 2018-06-07 11:07:45	0|rafalcpp|wumpus: yeap, perhaps it will be written tomorrow
 40 2018-06-07 11:08:11	0|wumpus|and from that, it only uses the title, body and branch base ref
 41 2018-06-07 12:24:11	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15marcoagner opened pull request #13410: Qt: removes html tags from tr calls (06master...06refactor_remove_tr_html_tags) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13410
 42 2018-06-07 14:02:54	0|rafalcpp|wumpus: any idea how "refs/heads/pull/1/merge" is created, because it seems to not exist on github.com repo for PR 1, and yet the script wants it
 43 2018-06-07 14:09:20	0|harding|rafalcpp: it's a special GitHub endpoint for PRs.  I don't know how they generate it.  You can see some instructions for one way to use it here that may be helpful (or not): https://gist.github.com/harding/1a99b0bad37f9498709f#opening-a-pr-for-a-pr
 44 2018-06-07 14:10:29	0|ryanofsky|you may need a line like "fetch = +refs/pull/*/merge:refs/remotes/origin/pull/*/merge" in your .git/config file
 45 2018-06-07 14:10:57	0|rafalcpp|hmm actually that /head etc might be created by script itself. checking
 46 2018-06-07 14:19:56	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14ebebedc 15lucash.dev@gmail.com: speed up of tx_validationcache_tests by reusing of CTransaction....
 47 2018-06-07 14:19:56	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f8bcef38fb9b...3d3d8ae3a0a9
 48 2018-06-07 14:19:57	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 143d3d8ae 15MarcoFalke: Merge #13404: [tests] speed up of tx_validationcache_tests by reusing of CTransaction....
 49 2018-06-07 14:20:50	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #13404: [tests] speed up of tx_validationcache_tests by reusing of CTransaction. (06master...06speedup-tx_validationcache_tests) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13404
 50 2018-06-07 15:09:30	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #13412: Make ReceivedBlockTransactions return void (06master...06Mf1806-refactorReturnCodeValidation) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13412
 51 2018-06-07 15:20:31	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke closed pull request #13384: qa: Remove polling loop from test_runner (06master...06Mf1806-qaTestRunnerConcurrentFuture) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13384
 52 2018-06-07 15:22:00	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15skeees opened pull request #13413: [net,mempool] Call AcceptToMemoryPool() asynchronously in p2p (06master...06mempool-async) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13413
 53 2018-06-07 16:00:17	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 8 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/3d3d8ae3a0a9...ea263e1eb030
 54 2018-06-07 16:00:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 149b0ec1a 15Jim Posen: db: Remove obsolete methods from CBlockTreeDB.
 55 2018-06-07 16:00:18	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 14e5af5fc 15Jim Posen: db: Make reusable base class for index databases.
 56 2018-06-07 16:00:19	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1461a1226 15Jim Posen: index: Extract logic from TxIndex into reusable base class.
 57 2018-06-07 16:01:05	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #13243: Make reusable base class for auxiliary indices (06master...06index-abstraction) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13243
 58 2018-06-07 16:01:23	0|jamesob|nice change, congrats jimpo
 59 2018-06-07 16:04:01	0|wumpus|I think we should invite jimpo / Jim Posen to the organizations, he's certainly a frequent contributor
 60 2018-06-07 16:05:24	0|sipa|ack
 61 2018-06-07 16:16:59	0|luke-jr|is there some reason we went from single-value args + multi-value args to override-args + config-args? the former seems a lot better..
 62 2018-06-07 16:53:34	0|rafalcpp|wumpus: gitlab support is added probably. Though I see git submodules are not supported at all. Ok to add support for it? maybe just convert them to text of the sha1 commit?
 63 2018-06-07 17:16:27	0|wumpus|rafalcpp: in bitcoin we use subtrees, not submodules, that's why there's no support for them
 64 2018-06-07 17:16:49	0|sipa|support for submodules where?
 65 2018-06-07 17:19:31	0|sipa|ah, in github-merge
 66 2018-06-07 17:20:39	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj pushed 2 new commits to 06master: 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/ea263e1eb030...97073f8837f3
 67 2018-06-07 17:20:40	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 142acd1d6 15Ben Woosley: Drop uint 256 not operator...
 68 2018-06-07 17:20:40	0|bitcoin-git|13bitcoin/06master 1497073f8 15Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #13396: Drop unused arith_uint256 ! operator...
 69 2018-06-07 17:21:14	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #13388: util: Implement boolean conversion and !operator for uint* (06master...06uint_bool) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13388
 70 2018-06-07 17:21:34	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15laanwj closed pull request #13396: Drop unused arith_uint256 ! operator (06master...06drop-bool-not) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13396
 71 2018-06-07 17:24:23	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15rfree-d opened pull request #13414: Support gitlab API in github-merge.py (06master...06githubmerge_support_gitlab) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13414
 72 2018-06-07 18:17:25	0|skeees|what would reaction / opinion be to defining a macro that allows a function to be static except in unit test builds
 73 2018-06-07 18:17:44	0|skeees|something like #ifdef TEST "" #else static
 74 2018-06-07 18:18:39	0|sipa|that would mean compiling the core objects separately for tests and for normal operation
 75 2018-06-07 18:19:06	0|sipa|which may have performance advantages, but also downsides w.r.t. testability (you're not testing the exact same code as the one that goes in production)
 76 2018-06-07 18:38:03	0|cfields|skeees: for what purpose?
 77 2018-06-07 18:39:34	0|skeees|basically, theres a bunch of stuff (e.g. in net_processing) that could become static (and a lot of which is only called from one place so probably even inlined at compile time) except that its unit tested somewhere. might have some perf benefits, and would also help readability because you can immediately assess that something is translation unit local
 78 2018-06-07 18:39:56	0|skeees|but i imagine the work to configure separate builds is substantial
 79 2018-06-07 18:40:13	0|sipa|the perf benefits we can get longer term through lto as well
 80 2018-06-07 18:40:14	0|cfields|skeees: sounds like you're looking for lto?
 81 2018-06-07 18:41:39	0|skeees|mostly actually, i'm trying to separate net_processing a bit more from validation, and its been somewhat of a manual exercise, but finding lots of these - so i would say primarily readability / modularization actually
 82 2018-06-07 18:41:52	0|skeees|probably better static analysis tools would accomplish the same
 83 2018-06-07 18:43:01	0|cfields|ah, I see
 84 2018-06-07 18:44:38	0|gmaxwell|If we just want a cosmetic note for arch reasons, there could be a STATICBUTFORTESTS that turns into STATIC for a specific test build (to verify that its used correctly) but otherwise isn't.
 85 2018-06-07 18:45:50	0|skeees|hmmm yeah, that would do it
 86 2018-06-07 18:46:16	0|wumpus|skeees: yes, pretty much an alternative to this: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13301#issuecomment-391712408
 87 2018-06-07 18:46:52	0|wumpus|skeees: there's some good reasons to be against including cpp files, but it's also useful for testing static functions :)
 88 2018-06-07 18:47:41	0|skeees|ahhh, well you could have that linter not run on anything in test/*
 89 2018-06-07 18:48:56	0|gmaxwell|In other projects I've had okay success with including .c files for unit tests. I can get arguments against it though.
 90 2018-06-07 18:51:08	0|wumpus|well it still has sipa's problem that "you're not testing the exact same code as the one that goes in production", it avoids the macro magic, but has including c/cpp files
 91 2018-06-07 18:51:33	0|wumpus|choosing between evils...
 92 2018-06-07 18:53:07	0|wumpus|the advantage of "my" method is that it also works for anonymous namespaces
 93 2018-06-07 18:53:30	0|wumpus|a macro to replace static, would just work for static
 94 2018-06-07 18:53:58	0|gmaxwell|Not testing the exact same code that goes into production is already pretty complicated. What the compiler is doing for inlinable functions already is inlining them where it can, potentially at every use in the file,  and then the export is some other code. So the test may well already be testing code that is not used anywhere else.
 95 2018-06-07 18:54:13	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: indeed
 96 2018-06-07 18:54:22	0|gmaxwell|(obviously this doesn't matter if the code is all defined behavior and the compiler is bug free...)
 97 2018-06-07 18:55:04	0|gmaxwell|I like to think of the "not testing the exact same code" as more of just a fundimental limitation of unit tests.
 98 2018-06-07 18:55:07	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15MarcoFalke opened pull request #13415: rpc: Add testblocktemplatevalidity (06master...06Mf1806-rpcTestblocktemplatevalidity) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13415
 99 2018-06-07 18:55:33	0|jcorgan|meeting?
100 2018-06-07 18:55:58	0|wumpus|I mean it's a good point - internal/static functions are very likely inlined, so it's impossible to test exactly the same assembly code as used in production functions
101 2018-06-07 18:56:16	0|wumpus|the point of the unit test would be to test the functionality of the code, not the compiler
102 2018-06-07 18:56:28	0|wumpus|jcorgan: still 3 minutes to go according to my clock
103 2018-06-07 18:56:49	0|jcorgan|ah, need to fix ntpd on my irc bouncer :)
104 2018-06-07 18:58:17	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: yes, point of the unit test is testing functionality of the code not the compiler-- though if the code executes undefined behavior you can't fully decouple those things.  In any case, my point is that static vs not static doesn't differ in the functionality of the code...
105 2018-06-07 18:58:58	0|sipa|*GONG*
106 2018-06-07 18:59:01	0|lightningbot|Meeting started Thu Jun  7 19:00:08 2018 UTC.  The chair is wumpus. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
107 2018-06-07 18:59:01	0|lightningbot|Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
108 2018-06-07 18:59:01	0|wumpus|#startmeeting
109 2018-06-07 18:59:49	0|achow101|hi
110 2018-06-07 18:59:56	0|sipa|hi
111 2018-06-07 18:59:58	0|wumpus|PSA: v0.16.1rc2 has been tagged, please start your gitian builders if you haven't yet, hopefully this can be a short rc, the only change is translations
112 2018-06-07 19:00:15	0|sipa|reasonable chance that rc2 will be final?
113 2018-06-07 19:00:22	0|sipa|(sorry, i haven't followed 0.16.1 much)
114 2018-06-07 19:00:27	0|achow101|yes
115 2018-06-07 19:00:39	0|wumpus|well at least I haven't seen any other reports to it, except the Russian translation issue
116 2018-06-07 19:00:41	0|promag|hi
117 2018-06-07 19:01:19	0|wumpus|so yes I hope this can be final very quickly
118 2018-06-07 19:01:51	0|jimpo_|hi
119 2018-06-07 19:01:55	0|wumpus|topic proposals?
120 2018-06-07 19:02:37	0|wumpus|#topic High priority for review
121 2018-06-07 19:02:49	0|wumpus|#link https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8
122 2018-06-07 19:03:47	0|wumpus|I don't understand why I added #13059 there last week, it's an issue, not a PR
123 2018-06-07 19:03:48	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13059 | Dynamic wallet load / create / unload · Issue #13059 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
124 2018-06-07 19:04:53	0|wumpus|at least we merged #13243
125 2018-06-07 19:04:55	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13243 | Make reusable base class for auxiliary indices by jimpo · Pull Request #13243 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
126 2018-06-07 19:04:59	0|sipa|yay
127 2018-06-07 19:05:03	0|promag|=)
128 2018-06-07 19:05:20	0|wumpus|so 6 PRs left, I'll remove the issue, surprised no one notified me about that
129 2018-06-07 19:05:42	0|promag|I saw that, didn't mind :P
130 2018-06-07 19:07:09	0|wumpus|I had an attempt at reviewing and testing #12196, but seems I found a bug
131 2018-06-07 19:07:14	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12196 | Add scantxoutset RPC method by jonasschnelli · Pull Request #12196 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
132 2018-06-07 19:07:22	0|wumpus|it also needs rebase
133 2018-06-07 19:07:26	0|wumpus|@jonasschnelli
134 2018-06-07 19:07:48	0|jonasschnelli|hi
135 2018-06-07 19:08:11	0|sipa|i was going to follow up with some ideas for writing sets of scripts/addresses
136 2018-06-07 19:08:22	0|jonasschnelli|yes. will take care. had some busy days but will work on it next week
137 2018-06-07 19:08:33	0|wumpus|ok, thanks for letting me know
138 2018-06-07 19:08:37	0|jonasschnelli|please do sipa
139 2018-06-07 19:08:45	0|sipa|yeah, it's on my todo list
140 2018-06-07 19:10:02	0|wumpus|#13062 I already reviewed a while ago, though it's been needed to rebase since
141 2018-06-07 19:10:04	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13062 | Make script interpreter independent from storage type CScript by sipa · Pull Request #13062 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
142 2018-06-07 19:10:17	0|sipa|i'll happily keep rebasing it :)
143 2018-06-07 19:10:51	0|wumpus|luke-jr: #11082 needs rebase too
144 2018-06-07 19:10:54	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11082 | Add new bitcoin_rw.conf file that is used for settings modified by this software itself by luke-jr · Pull Request #11082 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
145 2018-06-07 19:11:19	0|luke-jr|is there some reason we went from single-value args + multi-value args to override-args + config-args? the former seems a lot better..
146 2018-06-07 19:11:29	0|luke-jr|(this is blocking me on 11082 rebasing)
147 2018-06-07 19:11:42	0|wumpus|I'll take that as a topic suggestion
148 2018-06-07 19:11:44	0|sipa|i'm not sure what you mean by that
149 2018-06-07 19:11:58	0|wumpus|(for later)
150 2018-06-07 19:12:13	0|wumpus|#12136 still has lots of active discussion
151 2018-06-07 19:12:19	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12136 | Implement BIP 174 Partially Signed Bitcoin Transactions by achow101 · Pull Request #12136 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
152 2018-06-07 19:12:50	0|wumpus|achow101: any idea what's needed to move forward there?
153 2018-06-07 19:12:59	0|gmaxwell|Is 13191 waiting on my review and testing?
154 2018-06-07 19:13:01	0|achow101|wumpus: more review
155 2018-06-07 19:13:10	0|wumpus|achow101: just review? ok
156 2018-06-07 19:13:13	0|achow101|wumpus: perhaps on the bip itself too
157 2018-06-07 19:13:21	0|sipa|i've also been discussion some ideas for splitting part of it up
158 2018-06-07 19:13:57	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: #13191 is already merged, but you're very welcome to test and review it anyhow
159 2018-06-07 19:14:00	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13191 | Specialized double-SHA256 with 64 byte inputs with SSE4.1 and AVX2 by sipa · Pull Request #13191 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
160 2018-06-07 19:14:34	0|wumpus|sipa: that's a good idea, I think, just to have progress
161 2018-06-07 19:15:02	0|wumpus|better to make sure as many as possible non-controversial things already merged
162 2018-06-07 19:15:24	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: lol. sorry, I had an old page up and on reload the post merge discussion caused me to miss that it was merged. :P
163 2018-06-07 19:15:38	0|gmaxwell|So I was confused as to why it wasn't merged yet.
164 2018-06-07 19:15:38	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: hehe
165 2018-06-07 19:16:14	0|sipa|there are a few more specialized-instructions-optimized-code PRs open
166 2018-06-07 19:16:42	0|sipa|we discovered yesterday that compiling the sse4 intrinsics code with -mavx gives a 30% speedup
167 2018-06-07 19:16:55	0|wumpus|#13111 should be pretty close, I guess it's just a boring thing to manually test because it unloads
168 2018-06-07 19:16:58	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13111 | Add unloadwallet RPC by promag · Pull Request #13111 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
169 2018-06-07 19:17:17	0|cfields|sipa: how much work do you think it would be to switch the sse41 to intrinsics?
170 2018-06-07 19:17:20	0|promag|reviews are welcome
171 2018-06-07 19:17:29	0|wumpus|promag: I will
172 2018-06-07 19:17:39	0|promag|i think it's almost there
173 2018-06-07 19:17:47	0|sipa|cfields: that would be neat
174 2018-06-07 19:17:55	0|sipa|cfields: i can try, but it's low priority for me
175 2018-06-07 19:18:01	0|wumpus|sipa: yes, that was really neat
176 2018-06-07 19:18:02	0|gmaxwell|I'll put money on it being a boatload slower. :P
177 2018-06-07 19:18:25	0|sipa|gmaxwell: define "boatload" please
178 2018-06-07 19:18:30	0|gmaxwell|(based on the mavx result suggests to me that the compiler is failing to achieve a good register allocation that doesn't kill performance)
179 2018-06-07 19:18:34	0|gmaxwell|30%.
180 2018-06-07 19:18:35	0|sipa|(so i know whether to take the bet or not)
181 2018-06-07 19:18:47	0|sipa|nah, no way it's 30% slower with intrinsics :)
182 2018-06-07 19:19:06	0|wumpus|I supose it's only boatloads slower on my stupid AMD system :)
183 2018-06-07 19:19:35	0|cfields|sipa: ok, I'll look around for an impl on the net to copy from. I doubt I'd fare well myself, though :(
184 2018-06-07 19:19:56	0|sipa|cfields: the asm code we have is derived from nasm code that's more readable
185 2018-06-07 19:19:59	0|sipa|that may help
186 2018-06-07 19:20:06	0|wumpus|but anyhow if anyone needs benchmarking of anything on AMD, just let me know
187 2018-06-07 19:20:14	0|cfields|ok
188 2018-06-07 19:20:23	0|cfields|wumpus: I'd prefer to merge before getting the AMD numbers :p
189 2018-06-07 19:20:44	0|wumpus|cfields: I understand :p
190 2018-06-07 19:21:35	0|gmaxwell|wumpus: have you seen if the mavx compiled SSE4 code is slower on your system? I wouldn't expect it to be.
191 2018-06-07 19:21:36	0|wumpus|too bad I seem to collect them
192 2018-06-07 19:22:11	0|cfields|gmaxwell: iirc he benched those and it was ~the same.
193 2018-06-07 19:22:27	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: there was almost no difference with avx here
194 2018-06-07 19:22:37	0|wumpus|it was very slightly faster
195 2018-06-07 19:22:41	0|gmaxwell|odd.
196 2018-06-07 19:22:56	0|wumpus|looks like they go in to some emulation mode
197 2018-06-07 19:22:58	0|cfields|right: https://0bin.net/paste/ReThQTAAWhKYfH7x#K99wDsZBBbtqEnc1N44e9UWz2E-t1y2jDhByhD8BBZe
198 2018-06-07 19:23:13	0|gmaxwell|(odd because my understanding was that the 30% speedup from getting better register space, not from using any AVX instructions...)
199 2018-06-07 19:23:45	0|sipa|gmaxwell: in AVX mode there literally is 2x more register space
200 2018-06-07 19:24:03	0|sipa|but maybe that's not the reason for the speedup, i haven't analysed
201 2018-06-07 19:24:22	0|sipa|still, i would be very surprised if equivalent code with intrinsics rather than asm is more than a few % slower
202 2018-06-07 19:24:30	0|gmaxwell|We can take this discussion offline, but I don't completely agree. :)
203 2018-06-07 19:24:35	0|sipa|ok!
204 2018-06-07 19:24:38	0|wumpus|intrinsics should do very well, with modern SIMD instruction sets
205 2018-06-07 19:25:01	0|wumpus|(they're pretty much designed to work well with them)
206 2018-06-07 19:25:15	0|wumpus|but yes, it's getting a bit off topic
207 2018-06-07 19:25:35	0|wumpus|#topic single-value args + multi-value args to override-args + config-args? (luke-jr)
208 2018-06-07 19:25:48	0|sipa|luke-jr: elaborate
209 2018-06-07 19:26:01	0|gmaxwell|I have cached skeptcisism mostly because compilers used to be VERY bad with register allocations for SIMD, resulting in a lot of code that is more complex than 'run this code 4x in parallel' not getting a speedup when hand asm hapily got a 3x speedup. I know they're much better now. So perhaps ignore me. :)
210 2018-06-07 19:26:15	0|luke-jr|we used to have a map of arg name -> single value and arg name -> multiple values
211 2018-06-07 19:26:58	0|luke-jr|it's been changed to arg name-> multiple values, but with two maps, one for config file, and one for command line options
212 2018-06-07 19:27:30	0|luke-jr|it seems better to have config/commandline share maps
213 2018-06-07 19:27:30	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: compilers seem to have become better with that, but I understand your skepticism
214 2018-06-07 19:28:09	0|wumpus|gmaxwell: there's also the *optimizing for a specific CPU type* versus *optimizing it to be, on average, fast, for many families of CPUs* thing
215 2018-06-07 19:28:26	0|luke-jr|this comes up because the change complicates how to implement rwconf
216 2018-06-07 19:29:33	0|achow101|luke-jr: I think that change may be for qt settings interactions
217 2018-06-07 19:29:43	0|wumpus|luke-jr: I'm not sure I know enough about this to understand the implications of this in practice
218 2018-06-07 19:29:52	0|jnewbery|luke-jr: it was changed in #11862
219 2018-06-07 19:29:55	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11862 | Network specific conf sections by ajtowns · Pull Request #11862 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
220 2018-06-07 19:30:31	0|wumpus|whatever you do, please don't mess up the bitcoin-qt initialization order, the rest is fine with me :p
221 2018-06-07 19:30:49	0|sipa|i think it would also be useful to make the arg information know whether a particular argument is single-value or multi-value
222 2018-06-07 19:31:10	0|sipa|rather than have that information be at query time
223 2018-06-07 19:31:32	0|sipa|but i also don't understand the interactions well enough
224 2018-06-07 19:31:35	0|sipa|aj: you here?
225 2018-06-07 19:31:36	0|luke-jr|sipa: yes, I was thinking about that too
226 2018-06-07 19:31:41	0|wumpus|#13389 kind of scared me
227 2018-06-07 19:31:43	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13389 | Utils and libraries: Fix #13371 - move umask operation earlier in AppInit() by n2yen · Pull Request #13389 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
228 2018-06-07 19:32:19	0|luke-jr|the reason they're split one way or the other, is because the last command line option overrides the former ones, and the earlier config file overrides the later ones
229 2018-06-07 19:32:38	0|wumpus|we don't have good tests for half of this stuff
230 2018-06-07 19:32:50	0|luke-jr|so now when we do Get*Arg, the code is going for the end of the command line list, then the start of the config file list
231 2018-06-07 19:33:15	0|luke-jr|(the altnerative being, to just parse into a single value at startup, and just access that map at runtime)
232 2018-06-07 19:34:41	0|sipa|i feel like the right people aren't here to discuss that
233 2018-06-07 19:34:50	0|wumpus|yes
234 2018-06-07 19:34:52	0|luke-jr|maybe
235 2018-06-07 19:34:59	0|sipa|it sounds reasonable what you're saying, but i don't know enough to really comment
236 2018-06-07 19:35:25	0|wumpus|I agree
237 2018-06-07 19:36:04	0|jnewbery|There's a lot of discussion and review in both #12878 and #11862. AJ also added really good code coverage in those PRs, so it should be pretty straightforward to follow
238 2018-06-07 19:36:07	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12878 | [refactor] Config handling refactoring in preparation for network-specific sections by ajtowns · Pull Request #12878 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
239 2018-06-07 19:36:07	0|wumpus|other topics?
240 2018-06-07 19:36:10	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/11862 | Network specific conf sections by ajtowns · Pull Request #11862 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
241 2018-06-07 19:36:13	0|promag|it also sounds reasonable to encapsulate the arg chaining in a map lookup lookalike
242 2018-06-07 19:37:42	0|wumpus|meh
243 2018-06-07 19:38:00	0|luke-jr|sounds like either way I should start with tests
244 2018-06-07 19:38:08	0|wumpus|personally I prefer method calls to just look like method calls, not operator overrides, in the common case
245 2018-06-07 19:38:58	0|wumpus|luke-jr: yes! tests are always good
246 2018-06-07 19:40:47	0|wumpus|other topics?
247 2018-06-07 19:41:27	0|promag|actually I have a question
248 2018-06-07 19:42:03	0|promag|#13374 and #13375
249 2018-06-07 19:42:05	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13374 | utils and libraries: checking for bitcoin address in translations by kaplanmaxe · Pull Request #13374 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
250 2018-06-07 19:42:07	0|gribble|https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13375 | utils and libraries: address check in update-translations.py by undercoverGod · Pull Request #13375 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
251 2018-06-07 19:42:10	0|wumpus|if you have a topic, just propose it, there's no need to tell that you have a question
252 2018-06-07 19:42:39	0|promag|they are the same, why isn't one closed?
253 2018-06-07 19:43:11	0|wumpus|because no one told me (or fanquake, or anyone) to?
254 2018-06-07 19:43:31	0|wumpus|I do not have the capacity to pay attention to all PRs in parallel
255 2018-06-07 19:43:47	0|promag|really? :P
256 2018-06-07 19:43:47	0|sipa|we need to have an AVX2 wumpus
257 2018-06-07 19:43:53	0|wumpus|sipa: +1
258 2018-06-07 19:43:58	0|sipa|+8
259 2018-06-07 19:44:15	0|sipa|end of meeting, i assume?
260 2018-06-07 19:44:19	0|wumpus|yes
261 2018-06-07 19:44:21	0|wumpus|#endmeeting
262 2018-06-07 19:44:22	0|lightningbot|Log:            http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-06-07-19.00.log.html
263 2018-06-07 19:44:22	0|lightningbot|Meeting ended Thu Jun  7 19:45:28 2018 UTC.  Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot . (v 0.1.4)
264 2018-06-07 19:44:22	0|lightningbot|Minutes:        http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-06-07-19.00.html
265 2018-06-07 19:44:22	0|lightningbot|Minutes (text): http://www.erisian.com.au/meetbot/bitcoin-core-dev/2018/bitcoin-core-dev.2018-06-07-19.00.txt
266 2018-06-07 19:46:07	0|BlueMatt|oh, quick comment: if you have had ideas about things you want to fork into the protocol in the future, *please* read https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bips/blob/betterhash/bip-XXXX.mediawiki and make sure that your ideas can be added without protocol modifications so that miners dont need firmware updates
267 2018-06-07 19:46:12	0|BlueMatt|and pools wouldnt need to change
268 2018-06-07 19:46:31	0|BlueMatt|obviously basic things like additional commitments especially via the witness reserved value are clearly supported
269 2018-06-07 19:47:23	0|wumpus|promag: if people open "competing PRs" for the same issue that makes things more difficult
270 2018-06-07 19:47:53	0|wumpus|instead of just reviewing code, you suddenly need to be judge of what is the best approach
271 2018-06-07 19:48:16	0|promag|what are the odds to open competing PRs at the "same time"?
272 2018-06-07 19:48:29	0|promag|right
273 2018-06-07 19:48:45	0|wumpus|promag: it luckily doesn't happen too much!
274 2018-06-07 19:49:02	0|promag|imo one of the authors (the last?) should review the other
275 2018-06-07 19:49:16	0|promag|and close his own
276 2018-06-07 19:49:19	0|wumpus|I like your approach, get them to cooporate intead of compete
277 2018-06-07 19:50:31	0|promag|luke-jr: in this case they are very very similar
278 2018-06-07 19:50:31	0|wumpus|luke-jr: I know it, I shouldn't have given away this obvious DoS strategy
279 2018-06-07 19:50:54	0|promag|it's not a rewrite like you say
280 2018-06-07 19:50:56	0|luke-jr|wumpus: actually, if someone does try to DoS with it, it may end up improving our flow quickly
281 2018-06-07 19:51:31	0|wumpus|I'm... not going to say more about this, not giving people ideas :)
282 2018-06-07 19:52:00	0|promag|wumpus: then feel free to review my PR
283 2018-06-07 19:52:07	0|wumpus|promag: which one?
284 2018-06-07 19:52:33	0|promag|all
285 2018-06-07 19:52:35	0|promag|:|
286 2018-06-07 19:53:00	0|promag|unloadwallet
287 2018-06-07 19:53:20	0|promag|in travis its failing with -with-incompatible-bdb i think
288 2018-06-07 19:53:49	0|wumpus|lets' first see why travis is failing on it
289 2018-06-07 19:54:37	0|promag|I'll
290 2018-06-07 19:54:50	0|promag|.. to reproduce locally
291 2018-06-07 19:55:14	0|wumpus|multiwallet failing on x86_64 linux platforms
292 2018-06-07 19:56:41	0|promag|hm
293 2018-06-07 19:58:30	0|wumpus|I'll try locally too, on AMD :p
294 2018-06-07 19:59:37	0|promag|ty
295 2018-06-07 20:08:45	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15wodry opened pull request #13416: More precise explanation of parameter onlynet (06master...06patch-1) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13416
296 2018-06-07 20:15:17	0|wumpus|promag_: /home/orion/projects/bitcoin/bitcoin/src/qt/bitcoingui.cpp:122:5: warning: field 'spinnerFrame' will be initialized after field 'm_wallet_selector_label' [-Wreorder]
297 2018-06-07 20:16:48	0|wumpus|(I think that's due to your change, I haven't seen it before)
298 2018-06-07 20:32:36	0|wumpus|promag_: I don't get the same crash locally
299 2018-06-07 20:33:23	0|promag|regarding the warning, i'll fix
300 2018-06-07 20:34:07	0|promag|strange
301 2018-06-07 20:35:34	0|promag|mtt bug?
302 2018-06-07 20:36:14	0|wumpus|mtt?
303 2018-06-07 20:36:22	0|promag|multithread
304 2018-06-07 20:36:30	0|promag|crash aside, a code review + concept ack would be nice
305 2018-06-07 20:37:48	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15skeees opened pull request #13417: [net] Tighten scope in net_processing (06master...06net_processing-disentangle) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13417
306 2018-06-07 20:59:43	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15wodry closed pull request #13416: More precise explanation of parameter onlynet (06master...06patch-1) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13416
307 2018-06-07 21:05:15	0|bitcoin-git|[13bitcoin] 15wodry opened pull request #13418: More precise explanation of parameter onlynet (06master...06patch-2) 02https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13418
308 2018-06-07 21:28:51	0|MarcoFalke|> <fanquake> MarcoFalke is your bot on GH somewhere?
309 2018-06-07 21:28:53	0|MarcoFalke|Not yet
310 2018-06-07 21:47:16	0|jimpo|Why in BIP 141 is the coinbase witness stack restricted to 1 item instead of making the reserved value the entire witness?
311 2018-06-07 21:56:06	0|sipa|jimpo: perhaps that was a mistake
312 2018-06-07 21:56:32	0|sipa|the reasoning was that you only need 1 reserved value in each level to 'chain' a new piece of data necessary for consensus
313 2018-06-07 22:10:48	0|jimpo|OK, thanks. Yeah, seems like it would just require more hash operations if it's linear in the number of levels/commitments.