< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] yuntai closed pull request #13365: RPC/REST/ZMQ, Wallet: Set label with importprivkey only requested (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13365
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] qmma70 opened pull request #13388: util: Implement boolean conversion and !operator for uint_* (master...uint_bool) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13388
< mryandao> i actually asked about patch submission via mailing list in response to the takeover rumors.
< wumpus> mryandao: eek I understand now
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] n2yen opened pull request #13389: Utils and libraries: Fix #13371 - move umask operation earlier in AppInit() (master...13371) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13389
< wumpus> mryandao: I don't think there's a hurry to get away from github, but I do think the microsoft takeover is the slow road to obsolence, just like sourceforge, until the service is finally put out of its misery (like happened with microsoft's other code hosting service, codeplex)
< wumpus> aanyhow maybe we should bring up the host-our-own-gitlab-instance topic again at next meeting
< wumpus> at the least I'm going to cancel my paid github membership as asoon as the announcement goes through, having to pay microsoft-tax with laptops is enough, not going to give them any more money...
< wumpus> (while I didn't mind supporting a smaller company that simply provides a, generally well-maintained, service)
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/e24bf1ce184b...f0149330d2f8
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 1e4eec4 steverusso: doc: split FreeBSD build instructions out of build-unix.md...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f014933 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #13372: doc: split FreeBSD build instructions out of build-unix.md...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #13372: doc: split FreeBSD build instructions out of build-unix.md (master...link-to-building-on-freebsd) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13372
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/f0149330d2f8...2722a1f8e935
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f41d339 practicalswift: bench: Use non-throwing ParseDouble(...) instead of throwing boost::lexical_cast<double>(...)
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 2722a1f Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #13383: bench: Use non-throwing ParseDouble(...) instead of throwing boost::lexical_cast<double>(...)...
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #13383: bench: Use non-throwing ParseDouble(...) instead of throwing boost::lexical_cast<double>(...) (master...remove-dependency-on-lexical_cast-which-is-boost-and-also-throws) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13383
< jonasschnelli> roasbeef: what is the reason for using the version byte twice? Once in the enciphered payload and once prepended in plaintext: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/aezeed/cipherseed.go#L39
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 8 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/2722a1f8e935...0de7cc848e07
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 0df0178 Pieter Wuille: Benchmark Merkle root computation
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 57f3463 Pieter Wuille: Refactor SHA256 code
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master d0c9632 Pieter Wuille: Specialized double sha256 for 64 byte inputs
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #13191: Specialized double-SHA256 with 64 byte inputs with SSE4.1 and AVX2 (master...201709_dsha256_64) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13191
< promag> is `./test/functional/wallet_multiwallet.py --usecli` working in master?
< marcoagner> promag: it's running and passing in master here
< marcoagner> if that's what you're asking
< promag> ty
< wumpus> yep, all the tests are passing on master
< promag> is there a test cache?
< wumpus> what do you mean with a test cache?
< wumpus> I think the only cache used by the tests is a pre-generated blockchain and wallet
< promag> never mind, I'm trying make clean && make
< promag> make clean && ccache -C && make and the test above continues to fail :S
< wumpus> promag_: with what problem?
< wumpus> so it expects "Requested wallet does not exist or is not loaded" but it gets a CalledProcessError
< wumpus> "subprocess.CalledProcessError: Command '/Users/joao/Projects/bitcoin/src/bitcoin-cli' returned non-zero exit status 18."
< wumpus> code 18 is RPC_WALLET_NOT_FOUND
< wumpus> so that looks correct, I'm confused
< wumpus> promag: just tried to run that test separately here on master (ubuntu 16.04), no issues
< wumpus> promag: not sure what is special about your environment that could trigger this
< promag> wumpus: thanks
< promag> wumpus: I too can't understand why
< wumpus> you could try doing a completely new checkout, then if that passes, compare the difference
< wumpus> if even a new build from a clean tree doesn't pass, it would be extremely confusing
< promag> right, I hate on this happens
< promag> *when
< wumpus> it's bad, but one level of badness below issues that reproduce on travis but not locally
< promag> wumpus: git clone, autogen, configure, make, test same error :|
< promag> Python 3.6.5
< * wumpus> eats his hat
< wumpus> promag: what OS?
< promag> wumpus: macos 10.13.3
< wumpus> can't try that, but I see ubuntu 1804 has the same version of python, will try that
< promag> ok, ty
< promag> I'll be back in a bit
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ken2812221 opened pull request #13390: Tests: Ignore RemoteDisconnected and BadStatusLine when stopping node (master...stop_node) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13390
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #13391: Make tinyformat noexcept: Use default error handling (assert(0 && reason)) on incorrect format strings (master...non-throwing-tinyformat) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13391
< wumpus> pierre_rochard: for some reason, bitcoinacks is not counting my concept ACK here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/12136
< pierre_rochard> wumpus: I'm taking a look, it should've picked that up automatically
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift closed pull request #13391: Make tinyformat noexcept: Use default error handling (assert(0 && reason)) on incorrect format strings (master...non-throwing-tinyformat) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13391
< pierre_rochard> wumpus: fix is deployed https://bitcoinacks.com/?search=12136
< wumpus> pierre_rochard: thanks!
< jnewbery> promag: seems like the bitcoin-cli stderr is not matching the expected string. See test_node.py L370. I suggest you put a breakpoint in there and see what cli_stderr is set to
< promag> jnewbery: will do
< wumpus> promag: passed on ubuntu 18.04 with 3.6.5
< wumpus> +python
< promag> right
< wumpus> so yes makes sense to try to debug this issue locally, it's unlikely we're going to be able to reproduce it
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] practicalswift opened pull request #13392: util: Make strprintf noexcept. Improve error message on format string error. (master...strprintf-noexcept) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13392
< marcoagner> promag: got curious at lunch and successfully passed the test you're having issue on my other laptop (macos 10.13.4 with python 3.6.5)... no help, it seems.
< wumpus> promag: you don't happen to have a different version of bitcoind running that it, for some reason or bug, runs against?
< jonasschnelli> roasbeef: what is the reason for using the version byte twice? Once in the enciphered payload and once prepended in plaintext: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/aezeed/cipherseed.go#L39
< jonasschnelli> (sry, wanted to post that on #lightning-dev)
< promag> wumpus: jnewbery: marcoagner: fixed :|
< promag> export EVENT_NOKQUEUE=1
< promag> jnewbery: thanks for the tip
< promag> so my stderr has `[warn] kq_init: detected broken kqueue; not using.: Undefined error: 0`
< wumpus> promag: whoa. GOod find. I'm surprised you get that warning only for that test thoug!
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ken2812221 closed pull request #13390: Tests: Ignore RemoteDisconnected and BadStatusLine when stopping node (master...stop_node) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13390
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] ken2812221 reopened pull request #13390: Tests: Ignore RemoteDisconnected and BadStatusLine when stopping node (master...stop_node) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13390
< cfields> wumpus: that's just libevent falling back to poll(), as kqueue was known-buggy for 1 or 2 major macOS releases.
< wumpus> cfields: we should probably make sure that that warning is silenced, at least for the tests
< cfields> wumpus: I believe it should be fed to the logger. Maybe we don't have the libevent log callbacks hooked up for the tests?
< wumpus> cfields: we don't set up a logger at all in bitcoin-cli
< wumpus> cfields: (and this is in a --with-cli test)
< cfields> wumpus: ahh, I missed that this was with -cli!
< cfields> yep, that's the problem then. Need to event_set_log_callback() there.
< wumpus> cfields: where to send the output though? or just drop it
< cfields> wumpus: iirc it makes a distinction between errors and warnings. For -cli I suppose we could just drop warnings?
< echeveria> kind of feels like the extra transaction pool default should be slightly higher
< echeveria> I'm getting a lot of compact block value out of doubling it, without an enormous memory usage hit.
< wumpus> cfields: seems it indeed passes in a severity, so it's possible to distinguish. I think it's fine to drop warnings for bitcoin-cli.
< wumpus> cfields: though I'm happy this goes to stderr, not stdout, at least it won't corrupt the output!
< cfields> heh yes, that's nice
< wumpus> would be kind of messed-up for RPCs that only return a string, and suddenly it has some silly libevent warning in it
< cfields> wumpus: I'll PR a quick change to ignore warnings and abort on errors (as I assume it would do now anyway)
< wumpus> cfields: sgtm
< luke-jr> echeveria: comparing two nodes running at the same time?
< luke-jr> or different times?
< echeveria> luke-jr: comparing two nods, but only visually looking at the logs for now.
< luke-jr> right, I just mean time the transactions/blocks were received (ie, comparing the same circumstances)
< luke-jr> echeveria: want to make a PR and I can throw it in Knots 0.16.1 to give it some more real-world exposure? ;)
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #13393: Enable double-SHA256-for-64-byte code on 32-bit x86 (master...201806_dsha256_i386) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13393
< gmaxwell> sipa: I thought there was intel core stuff that had SSE4 but not 64-bit?
< sipa> gmaxwell: perhaps, let me check!
< gmaxwell> echeveria: if you felt board you could do a bit of code copying, and keep an extra cache of each size...
< echeveria> hm, yeah
< echeveria> can simulate misses
< sipa> gmaxwell: they were introduced in Penryn, which supports x86_64
< sipa> perhaps SSE4 was later 'backported' to 32-bit CPU lines, though
< gmaxwell> Also technically our SSE4 code before was SSSE3, I dunno if thats the case for the new stuff.
< gmaxwell> (and I do have a cpu here which is SSSE3 and not SSE4 and I did try our old SSE4 code on it)
< sipa> hmm, can you try the new code?
< luke-jr> hmm, I wonder if I should make a 32-bit chroot to test this on then
< luke-jr> SSSE3 does NOT work correctly on Haswell CPUs running in 32-bit mode
< luke-jr> even though the CPU claims to support it
< luke-jr> (possibly an ABI/alignment issue)
< luke-jr> but that's assuming the new code is still SSSE3 at all.. :P
< jonasschnelli> Before:
< jonasschnelli> SHA256, 5, 340, 3.79253, 0.00222458, 0.00224373, 0.00222941
< jonasschnelli> Current master:
< jonasschnelli> SHA256, 5, 340, 3.85136, 0.00224624, 0.00227539, 0.00226702
< sipa> jonasschnelli: use the Merkle branchmark or SHA256D64 benchmark
< jonasschnelli> SHA256D64_1024, 5, 7400, 3.54442, 9.52022e-05, 9.65184e-05, 9.57865e-05
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] theuni opened pull request #13394: cli: Ignore libevent warnings (master...cli-event) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13394
< sipa> the normal SHA256 isn't affected by #13191
< 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
< jonasschnelli> sipa: Yes. Right. SSE4 was enabled before..
< roasbeef> jonasschnelli: external version for how to decipher the thing in the first place, internal version tells wallet what scheme was used to derive the set of addrs
< jonasschnelli> roasbeef: I see. Thanks!
< gmaxwell> sipa: I can but it'll be a bit since that computer is in a box right now.
< gmaxwell> echeveria: At least a few weeks ago I was watching it and almost never seeing hits out of my ordinary sized extrapool... but that might have just been because it was a bit too small.
< echeveria> 2018-06-04 18:15:44.495322 Successfully reconstructed block 00000000000000000037acbd8ccb51a8f09222800eab38f30c89bbe48ade3925 with 1 txn prefilled, 2075 txn from mempool (incl at least 13 from extra pool) and 16 txn requested
< echeveria> 2018-06-04 18:06:29.634709 Successfully reconstructed block 0000000000000000000e62f80def774b415e812da4473cdb49f3ba56ea0f1865 with 1 txn prefilled, 343 txn from mempool (incl at least 11 from extra pool) and 332 txn requested
< echeveria> woof.
< gmaxwell> oh man, yea thats pretty good
< echeveria> yeah I'll collect some proper stats.
< echeveria> a lot of the time I'm getting complete reconstructions which is nice. the node is running on a core i3 box that's mega underpowered, intentionally to see how it'll run.
< gmaxwell> sipa: should call for someone to try out 13386 on shani supporting intel, ... they only have it on some atom cpus.
< sipa> i know; Goldmont only
< gmaxwell> not that its that important but it would be interesting to see numbers.
< echeveria> I looked around a while ago and couldn't find anything easy to get my hands on with a goldmont chip
< echeveria> works on my rizen 7 server though.
< gmaxwell> I assume DO or some other hosting provider is using goldmonts in vpses.
< echeveria> they're larger x86 cores for DO and ScaleWay.
< gmaxwell> (since basically thats the target application for that chip, AFAICT)
< echeveria> ScaleWay has armv7 servers which is vaguely interesting, I run an edge router node on one of their ARM boxes.
< luke-jr> what is the cpuinfo entry for shani?
< luke-jr> a: sha_ni
< sipa> luke-jr: sha ?
< sipa> sha_ni, indeed
< sipa> on my Ryzen
< cfields> sipa: taking an optim from the intel sha2 whitepaper gives me a ~6% speedup on the SHA256D64_1024 bench, using sse4 (no avx2 here :( )
< cfields> changes: https://github.com/theuni/bitcoin/commits/sha2-avx1 (top two, very simple)
< cfields> I assume it would benefit the avx2 impl the same way, but can't test
< sipa> cfields: oh, nice
< sipa> cfields: testing
< sipa> cfields: makes it slower for me
< sipa> 3.5% slower
< cfields> sipa: huh. Is that sse4, or did you merge it into avx2?
< sipa> i merged it into avx2
< cfields> sipa: is it slower for the sse4 path on your cpu too?
< sipa> cfields: 5% speedup for SSE4
< sipa> (when disabling AVX2 in both)
< sipa> so go for it
< cfields> ok, so I'm not crazy
< jarthur> gmaxwell sipa sorry I haven't had a chance to play with trying the dual SHA-NI on Ryzen yet. Anyone else had a chance to try it yet?
< promag> #13111
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/13111 | Add unloadwallet RPC by promag · Pull Request #13111 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< promag> ^ awesome PR to review!..
< sipa> "coredevelopers do not want you to see this awesome trick!"
< promag> :P