< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa pushed 4 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/c36229b0b2e9...2efcfa5acfac
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 87c35f5 Matt Corallo: Remove orphan state wipe from UnloadBlockIndex....
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master e736772 Matt Corallo: Move network-msg-processing code out of main to its own file
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 76faa3c Matt Corallo: Rename the remaining main.{h,cpp} to validation.{h,cpp}
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa closed pull request #9260: Mrs Peacock in The Library with The Candlestick (killed main.{h,cpp}) (master...net_processing_file) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9260
< cfields> let the rebasing begin :)
< sipa> now: the big rebasing game
< sipa> jinx
< cfields> haha
< BlueMatt> hey-o!
< cfields> BlueMatt: there are a few includes cleanups that can be done that should help with memory
< cfields> BlueMatt: not sure if you had a few in the queue, or if i should go ahead and PR
< BlueMatt> cfields: I dont have a queue of them, but was playing around at https://github.com/TheBlueMatt/bitcoin/commits/2016-12-memusage
< BlueMatt> feel free to peruse that and PR whatever you did
< sipa> damn, validation.cpp is *still* 8000 lines
< cfields> ok
< cfields> BlueMatt: boost/filesystem/path.hpp in validation.h was the only one i really had my eye on
< BlueMatt> now that I read the feedback, cfields' comments pointed out that filterRounder changed behavior just slightly - instead of rounding based on DEFAULT_MIN_RELAY_TX_FEE it now rounds based on -minrelaytxfee, oops
< BlueMatt> doesnt matter all that much, but the original behavior is probably more correct
< BlueMatt> welll, actually
< BlueMatt> hum, dunno, needs pointed out for discussion, not sure if its better that users can change that rounding or not
< BlueMatt> (given hardcoded-value-avoidance-policies)
< BlueMatt> I'll file an issue and open it up
< sipa> users changing the rounding is probably a slight privacy leak
< sipa> which is afaik the reason for rounding in the first place
< cfields> BlueMatt: hmm, i thought i verified the behavior didn't change there. Not sure how i noticed the mempool weirdness without seeing that too
< BlueMatt> it is, technically, but I'd be surprised if it wasnt already visible what your -minrelaytxfee is
< BlueMatt> but, ok, will pr a fix and see what folks say
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] TheBlueMatt opened pull request #9268: Fix rounding privacy leak introduced in #9260 (master...2016-12-feefilterrounder) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9268
< * BlueMatt> -> dinner, in a whole new world :p
< morcos> woo hoo!
< * sipa> gives BlueMatt a disney movie
< * jtimon> still needs to google more about mrs peacock, but prefers to keep rebasing for now (I had things to rebase before renaming main, but one more step towards using git blame in main/validation)
< sipa> jtimon: do you know the game cluedo?
< jtimon> I don't think have played, but yes, it's famous
< sipa> the game ends when a player figures out who the murdered is, where the murder happened, and with what weapon
< jtimon> just enjoy with anything make main smaller
< sipa> *murderer
< alpalp> the game also ends if you guess wrong
< sipa> jtimon: well, main.cpp now has size 0 :p
< jtimon> right, calling main validation is going to take some time...
< jtimon> btw, I was serious about rewritting any part of https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8328 that can be agreed on, just without any clear agreement, there's no point and keeping that open for long (since it's guaranteed to be arebase hell)
< jtimon> what about moving bitcoinconsensus.o from script to consensus?
< jtimon> anyway, first rebase
< sipa> BlueMatt: how do you measure compiler memory usage?
< cfields> BlueMatt: I just hacked it up after the main split because it looked kinda trivial, not sure if that's a direction worth going in or not
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #9269: Align struct COrphan definition (master...oneorphan) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9269
< sipa> BlueMatt: i succesfully compiled with flto, and i never saw memory usage of a single process go above ~700MB (i was just watching with top, this may not be very accurate)
< cfields> hmm, actually, CConnman could easily just hold the interface pointer, since it's abstract
< cfields> sipa: isn't lto much less intensive on the individual compilation units?
< cfields> or was that your point?
< sipa> yes
< cfields> ok, nm me
< BlueMatt> sipa: you want grep VmPeak /proc/`pidof cc1plus`/status
< sipa> this is made using /usr/bin/time -f "%M" g++
< BlueMatt> cfields: concept ack, but I'd say yes to just about anything that removed boost in any context
< BlueMatt> sipa: oh, even better
< sipa> BlueMatt: i made a tiny wrapper around g++ that calls time, and passed that as CXX= to configure
< BlueMatt> yea
< sipa> oh, the numbers for the binaries are likely inaccurate, as gcc spawns child processes that do the linking/compiling
< BlueMatt> yea, i mean thats where lto uses all its memory/time, though?
< sipa> time, yes
< sipa> memory, no
< BlueMatt> oh? the streaming shit?
< sipa> the memory used by those processes seems much lower than the typical first step compilation
< sipa> like 60MB or so
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jtimon opened pull request #9271: Discusion : 0.13 consensus flags error (master...0.13-consensus-flags-error) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9271
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jtimon closed pull request #9271: Discusion : 0.13 consensus flags error (master...0.13-consensus-flags-error) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9271
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jtimon reopened pull request #9271: Discusion : 0.13 consensus flags error (master...0.13-consensus-flags-error) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9271
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9267: Disable fee estimates for a confirm target of 1 block (0.13...backport9239) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9267
< wumpus> strange, bitcoin-git shows the close notice but not the merge on the 0.13 branch
< wumpus> first thought I forgot to push, but I didn't
< btcdrak> wumpus: I have the same problem with notifications for another repo.
< wumpus> btcdrak: may be just an intermittent issue, it's the first time I notice at least
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jtimon closed pull request #7779: Discussion: Consensus: There's only one type of consensus flags (master...0.12.99-consensus-unify-flags) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7779