< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] meshcollider pushed 4 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/36f42e1bf43f...68e841e0af22
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 005f8a9 Russell Yanofsky: wallet: Improve LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::CanProvide script recognition
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master eb7d8a5 Sjors Provoost: [test] check for addmultisigaddress regression
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a304a36 Russell Yanofsky: Revert "Store p2sh scripts in AddAndGetDestinationForScript"
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] meshcollider merged pull request #18067: wallet: Improve LegacyScriptPubKeyMan::CanProvide script recognition (master...pr/provide) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18067
< aj> fjahr: your bench results on #16902 seem very strange. are you sure you're benching the right commits? for a in e6e622e5 89fb241c; do git checkout $a && make -j5 >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo "Testing $a" && bench/bench_bitcoin -filter=VerifyNestedIfScript -evals=200; done # to be sure maybe?
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/16902 | O(1) OP_IF/NOTIF/ELSE/ENDIF script implementation by sipa . Pull Request #16902 . bitcoin/bitcoin . GitHub
< fjahr> aj: I know, I had checked it multiple times already because of that. First cleaned up with `make distclean && ./autogen.sh && ./configure` and then ran `for a in e6e622e5 89fb241c; do git checkout $a && make >/dev/null 2>&1 && echo "Testing $a" && src/bench/bench_bitcoin -filter=VerifyNestedIfScript -evals=200; done`
< fjahr> Result:
< fjahr> Previous HEAD position was 89fb241c5 Benchmark script verification with 100 nested IFs
< fjahr> HEAD is now at e6e622e5a Implement O(1) OP_IF/NOTIF/ELSE/ENDIF logic
< fjahr> Testing e6e622e5
< fjahr> # Benchmark, evals, iterations, total, min, max, median
< fjahr> VerifyNestedIfScript, 200, 100, 3.172, 0.000145396, 0.000216281, 0.000158131
< fjahr> Previous HEAD position was e6e622e5a Implement O(1) OP_IF/NOTIF/ELSE/ENDIF logic
< fjahr> HEAD is now at 89fb241c5 Benchmark script verification with 100 nested IFs
< fjahr> Testing 89fb241c
< fjahr> # Benchmark, evals, iterations, total, min, max, median
< fjahr> VerifyNestedIfScript, 200, 100, 3.25516, 0.000152817, 0.000248366, 0.000160376
< aj> fjahr: what's the system/compiler?
< fjahr> macOS, clang
< fjahr> $ clang --version
< fjahr> clang version 9.0.1
< fjahr> Target: x86_64-apple-darwin19.3.0
< fjahr> Thread model: posix
< fjahr> InstalledDir: /usr/local/opt/llvm/bin
< sipa> any debug/optimization flags that may matter? sanitizers?
< sipa> ah, no
< aj> fjahr: no VMs? what cpu?
< fjahr> no vm, Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-6287U CPU @ 3.10GHz
< sipa> well, it's still faster
< sipa> that's really all we care about
< luke-jr> was it SHA512 that caused the entire CPU to slow down if we used the hardware optimisation? I wonder how we'd handle if a future CPU solved that..
< luke-jr> I guess we could benchmark at startup
< sipa> luke-jr: AVX512 on supported systems; we don't use those instructions
< sipa> (also hardly.anything supports them)
< luke-jr> sipa: I was just pondering how/if we should, when/if Intel/AMD make a CPU that can use them effectively
< luke-jr> having a "slow down the CPU" implementation on current CPUs seems to sabotage detection of whether to use them or not in future ones
< sipa> i suspect that that behavior (halving CPU speed) will disappear before it becomes available in mainstream hardware
< luke-jr> so just pretend the ones with it don't exist?
< aj> fjahr: https://github.com/ajtowns/bitcoin/commits/202002-fjahr-wtf maybe try -filter='VerifyNestedIfScript.*' on the 1st and 3rd commits on that?
< luke-jr> I suppose we could always have a debug option to manually override if necessary
< sipa> right now it only exists in computation hardware, which likely runs custom optimized software anyway
< luke-jr> oh, not even "real" CPUs?
< luke-jr> heh, I guess that question is meaningless: I mean, not in CPUs you run a normal user OS on?
< sipa> xeon phi
< luke-jr> i c
< sipa> it's also only a question for the tike when we decide to actually wrote optimized code that uses those instructions
< sipa> and i suspect we won't do that as long as the cpu speed halving it implies disappears on reasonable target platforms
< phantomcircuit> luke-jr, i think the only solution is to blacklist the ones where it's worse
< phantomcircuit> sipa, that's not right, avx512 is available on normal x86 cpu's now
< sipa> phantomcircuit: oh?
< promag> looks like #17878 is not going to make 0.20
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/17878 | wip: zmq: Support -zmqpubwallettx by promag . Pull Request #17878 . bitcoin/bitcoin . GitHub
< promag> so maybe remove from HP
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] Sjors closed pull request #16895: External signer multisig support (master...2019/09/hww-multisig) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16895
< yevaud> I went to fix the display of -par=0 output printing nonsensically "using 0 threads for script verification" and looks like wumpus beat me to it. good stuff.
< yevaud> I've been playing with bitcoind to see how small you can get the footprint of it for embedded into other applications. turns out very well. with no dbcache, no threads, no mempool, and no connections, it's almost invisible. slow, but that's not the goal.
< wumpus> that's an interesting experiment!
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jonatack opened pull request #18178: test: update valgrind suppressions (master...add-valgrind-suppressions) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18178
< elichai2> Is anyone having problems commenting on PRs? I'm trying to ACK something and I get `You can't comment at this time. `
< elichai2> github is misbhaving :/ i'll throw this here for now in case I forget to comment when github is working properly again
< elichai2> #18162 `Nice find! I'd refactor this out to a function that returns `Optional<struct tm>` but this can be done in a future PR ACK 6558ec35654d1a9990dcb534b18b5c88c5a4e165`
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18162 | util: Avoid potential uninitialized read in FormatISO8601DateTime(int64_t) by checking gmtime_s/gmtime_r return value by practicalswift . Pull Request #18162 . bitcoin/bitcoin . GitHub
< jonatack> elichai2: yep, same. laggy buggy githubby
< jonatack> elichai2: after seeing that error, i refreshed the page and the comment was posted
< wumpus> I had that once too, posting something, get an error, press 'send' again, error, again, error, then refresh the page and to my horror the comment is posted 10 times or so :-)
< emilengler> sometimes trying stuff in the incognito mode of the browser works for some reasons
< ryanofsky> i'm also getting errors commenting and even previewing comments, and I get a "Looks like something went wrong!" 500 error while trying to log in incognito
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] icota opened pull request #18179: Add Lightning Network support (master...2020-01-core-lightning) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18179
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #18181: test: Remove incorrect assumptions in validation_flush_tests (master...2002-ciTestValNoArch) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18181
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke pushed 6 commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/68e841e0af22...eddcbfb109e5
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master a3b539a practicalswift: ci: Run fuzz testing test cases under valgrind
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 555236f practicalswift: tests: Remove -detect_leaks=0 from test/fuzz/test_runner.py - no longer ne...
< bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 5ea8144 practicalswift: tests: Add support for excluding fuzz targets using -x/--exclude
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke merged pull request #18166: ci: Run fuzz testing test cases (bitcoin-core/qa-assets) under valgrind to catch memory errors (master...fuzz-test-cases-under-valgrind) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18166
< jonasschnelli> You commented "See #18037" (which is the PR you commented on)
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18037 | Util: Allow scheduler to be mocked by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #18037 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< jonasschnelli> Ah. You meant #18174
< gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/18174 | WIP test: make mockscheduler test more reliable by amitiuttarwar · Pull Request #18174 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
< jeremyrubin> sdaftuar: hi?
< bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #18154: Trivial(qt): Capitalization, spelling (master...qt-nitpicking) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18154