12017-02-24T00:00:01 <sipa> but the progress estimation code was changed significantly in 0.14
22017-02-24T00:02:07 <gmaxwell> reindexing spends something like 20 minutes up front scanning for headers, which might be distorting your numbers.
32017-02-24T00:05:21 *** e4xit has quit IRC
42017-02-24T00:05:35 *** PRab has quit IRC
52017-02-24T00:05:40 *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
62017-02-24T00:14:44 *** handlex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
72017-02-24T00:15:17 *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
82017-02-24T00:15:17 *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
92017-02-24T00:32:51 *** marcoagner has quit IRC
102017-02-24T00:34:39 *** pfeerpedr has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
112017-02-24T00:35:13 <pfeerpedr> who do i need to talk to in order to speed up my transaction?
122017-02-24T00:38:35 *** pfeerpedr has quit IRC
132017-02-24T00:39:04 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] MarcoFalke opened pull request #9846: doc: Small release notes fixups in the list of pulls (0.14...Mf1702-014doc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9846
142017-02-24T00:40:02 *** handlex has quit IRC
152017-02-24T00:58:17 *** e4xit has quit IRC
162017-02-24T01:01:18 *** abpa has quit IRC
172017-02-24T01:05:13 *** Giszmo has quit IRC
182017-02-24T01:14:21 *** alpalp has quit IRC
192017-02-24T01:21:35 *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
202017-02-24T01:24:54 *** goksinen has quit IRC
212017-02-24T01:26:42 *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
222017-02-24T01:34:10 *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
232017-02-24T01:37:52 *** goksinen_ has quit IRC
242017-02-24T01:45:14 *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
252017-02-24T01:45:58 *** handlex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
262017-02-24T01:54:01 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
272017-02-24T02:02:53 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] sipa opened pull request #9847: Extra test vector for BIP32 (master...bip32up) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9847
282017-02-24T02:15:48 *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
292017-02-24T02:15:48 *** alpalp has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
302017-02-24T02:24:48 *** Giszmo has quit IRC
312017-02-24T02:40:51 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
322017-02-24T02:42:19 <achow101> cfields: just reset my gitian and got 8d4bb27b5ab1916f04b74a2bcdccf8781c46fea96a3d5eb4a4a7f587577df64c bitcoin-0.14.0-osx-unsigned.dmg
332017-02-24T02:42:23 <achow101> does that match yours?
342017-02-24T02:42:35 *** jtimon has quit IRC
352017-02-24T02:42:41 <achow101> It's probably doing the alternating thing again
362017-02-24T02:54:26 *** go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
372017-02-24T02:55:56 *** praxeology has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
382017-02-24T02:56:27 <fanquake> achow101 looks like it does match
392017-02-24T02:56:58 <fanquake> So you've got the alternating builds again? I'm just about to finish mine.
402017-02-24T03:08:24 *** dodomojo has quit IRC
412017-02-24T03:11:18 *** echonaut has quit IRC
422017-02-24T03:11:28 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] appop opened pull request #9848: update (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9848
432017-02-24T03:11:30 *** echonaut has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
442017-02-24T03:12:21 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] fanquake closed pull request #9848: update (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9848
452017-02-24T03:16:53 *** dodomojo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
462017-02-24T03:21:36 <fanquake> achow101 Interestingly, my osx gitian results now match cfields. Which is weird, because nothings changes since rc1 that could have fixed gitian issues.
472017-02-24T03:29:56 *** Victor_sueca has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
482017-02-24T03:30:38 *** handlex has quit IRC
492017-02-24T03:32:13 *** Victorsueca has quit IRC
502017-02-24T03:36:34 *** MarcoFalke has quit IRC
512017-02-24T03:37:20 *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
522017-02-24T03:42:45 <achow101> actually, just ran gitian again and it got cfields's results. I'll run it a few more times to make sure it is deterministic
532017-02-24T04:01:25 *** justan0theruser has quit IRC
542017-02-24T04:01:33 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] luke-jr opened pull request #9849: Qt: Network Watch tool (master...gui_netwatch) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9849
552017-02-24T04:02:53 *** justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
562017-02-24T04:03:02 <cfields> achow101: it'd be really helpful if you could upload the .o files from a non-matching build
572017-02-24T04:03:52 <achow101> I think I can give you the kvm image of the non-matching build. I just need to make sure it is the right one
582017-02-24T04:04:00 <cfields> achow101: "on-target" after the build gives you a shell
592017-02-24T04:04:01 *** alpalp has quit IRC
602017-02-24T04:09:32 <achow101> cfields: well that build ended a while ago and I have since done other builds. right now I am trying to start the vm with that image of the mismatching build which I saved and then ssh'ing into it, but it doesn't seem to be working now
612017-02-24T04:12:09 *** dodomojo has quit IRC
622017-02-24T04:16:00 <cfields> achow101: ok, let me know if you manage to get them. I'll check back in the morning
632017-02-24T04:22:41 *** fanquake has quit IRC
642017-02-24T04:28:18 *** e4xit has quit IRC
652017-02-24T04:39:44 <achow101> cfields: I got all of the build stuff off of the vm and tar'ed it. It should contain all of the .o files. Download: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxw3ip9QfNOUVzkwUnlhMTExYjg/view?usp=sharing
662017-02-24T04:40:04 <achow101> also I can give you the vm which contains all of that stuff too. I'm waiting for the upload of that to finish
672017-02-24T04:46:29 <achow101> cfields: vm with the mismatching build: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxw3ip9QfNOUN0E2aDZZQU1Pd2s/view?usp=sharing
682017-02-24T05:00:16 *** dermoth has quit IRC
692017-02-24T05:00:58 *** dermoth has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
702017-02-24T05:05:41 *** PaulCapestany has quit IRC
712017-02-24T05:06:54 *** PaulCape_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
722017-02-24T05:20:54 *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
732017-02-24T05:25:04 <cfields> achow101: er, you sure that's a broken build?
742017-02-24T05:25:16 *** praxeology has left #bitcoin-core-dev
752017-02-24T05:26:04 *** chjj has quit IRC
762017-02-24T05:30:11 <luke-jr> (we have 3 sigs on rc2)
772017-02-24T05:30:26 <luke-jr> oh, but not all matching
782017-02-24T05:31:25 <cfields> luke-jr: yea, i think i'll delay signing until morning once a few more are in
792017-02-24T05:31:49 <cfields> now that we have achow101's objects for comparison, I'm hoping it'll point to the culprit
802017-02-24T05:31:52 <achow101> cfields: I'm pretty sure that's the broken build
812017-02-24T05:35:49 <achow101> luke-jr: my matching osx ones are pr'ed
822017-02-24T05:36:11 <cfields> achow101: are you positive? All of my object files are identical as far as i can tell
832017-02-24T05:37:10 <achow101> yes.
842017-02-24T05:37:21 <achow101> you can fire up the vm image I gave you to check as well
852017-02-24T05:38:52 *** whphhg has quit IRC
862017-02-24T05:44:01 *** go1111111 has quit IRC
872017-02-24T05:44:03 <cfields> achow101: ok nm, got the diff now
882017-02-24T05:48:05 <achow101> cool
892017-02-24T05:53:09 <cfields> achow101: mmm, they're different kernels
902017-02-24T05:53:36 <cfields> that's the only obvious thing i see
912017-02-24T05:54:25 <cfields> maybe qt embeds uname output?
922017-02-24T05:56:21 <achow101> but why would it only affect osx?
932017-02-24T05:56:39 <achow101> also, how are they different kernels? I thought the vms were built exactly the same
942017-02-24T05:56:55 <cfields> they should be
952017-02-24T05:57:18 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
962017-02-24T05:57:25 <achow101> oh, maybe the upgrade that happens every time was failing some of the time?
972017-02-24T05:57:28 <cfields> -uname -r = 3.13.0-108-generic
982017-02-24T05:57:28 <cfields> +uname -r = 3.13.0-77-generic
992017-02-24T05:57:29 <luke-jr> LXC uses the host's kernel
1002017-02-24T05:57:43 <luke-jr> so no matter what, we can't rely on kernels to match
1012017-02-24T05:57:44 <achow101> luke-jr: I'm using kvm
1022017-02-24T05:59:28 <cfields> luke-jr: well the fact that the kernels don't match is indicative that they're not using the same base
1032017-02-24T05:59:40 <cfields> in which case glibc (or something) may be different
1042017-02-24T05:59:53 <luke-jr> hm
1052017-02-24T06:00:47 <cfields> so it seems to be some kind of gitian issue
1062017-02-24T06:03:50 *** go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1072017-02-24T06:08:01 *** instagibbs has quit IRC
1082017-02-24T06:13:35 *** e4xit has quit IRC
1092017-02-24T06:14:40 *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1102017-02-24T06:18:15 *** instagibbs has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1112017-02-24T06:26:21 *** lclc has quit IRC
1122017-02-24T06:32:04 *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1132017-02-24T06:32:04 *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1142017-02-24T07:06:38 *** e4xit has quit IRC
1152017-02-24T07:42:23 <luke-jr> jonasschnelli: what kind of locking issues? can you elaborate?
1162017-02-24T07:43:21 <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: the app is unresponsive. I had to force shut down... will take a closer look
1172017-02-24T07:43:26 <jonasschnelli> luke-jr: but I like the PR
1182017-02-24T07:44:31 *** BashCo has quit IRC
1192017-02-24T07:44:39 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1202017-02-24T07:48:50 <wumpus> so it looks like someone had the test_bitcoin issue outside of travis: #9850
1212017-02-24T07:48:52 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9850 | test_bitcoin: /usr/include/boost/thread/pthread/recursive_mutex.hpp:104: boost::recursive_mutex::~recursive_mutex(): Assertion `!pthread_mutex_destroy() failed. · Issue #9850 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
1222017-02-24T07:50:26 <jonasschnelli> yes
1232017-02-24T07:51:00 <jonasschnelli> I tried to reproduce in ubuntu 14.04. but did not had the issue
1242017-02-24T07:51:09 <wumpus> same here.
1252017-02-24T07:51:27 <wumpus> did a depends build, just like travis, on 14.04, just like travis
1262017-02-24T07:51:41 <wumpus> so that means the same version of boost, gcc, etc
1272017-02-24T07:52:06 <wumpus> this is really strange
1282017-02-24T07:52:27 <jonasschnelli> Oh. Even that.
1292017-02-24T07:52:55 *** lclc_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1302017-02-24T07:53:16 <gmaxwell> hurray! (?)
1312017-02-24T07:53:28 <jonasschnelli> I ran test_bitcoin in valgrind and I could see some uninitialised value
1322017-02-24T07:53:42 *** fanquake has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1332017-02-24T07:54:14 <jonasschnelli> invoked by the toggle_network RPC tests
1342017-02-24T07:55:24 *** lclc has quit IRC
1352017-02-24T07:59:45 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1362017-02-24T08:00:15 <wumpus> jonasschnelli: that is a potential concern, however what happens in the RPC tests shouldn't affect test_bitcoin?
1372017-02-24T08:00:37 <jonasschnelli> wumpus: I meant the RPC unit tests...
1382017-02-24T08:00:41 <wumpus> no valgrind errors in test_bitcoin?
1392017-02-24T08:00:43 <wumpus> ooh!
1402017-02-24T08:01:00 <jonasschnelli> look for rpc_togglenetwork
1412017-02-24T08:01:11 <jonasschnelli> rpc_tests.cpp
1422017-02-24T08:01:28 <jonasschnelli> Not sure if its related... we have added this a couple of weeks (or even months) ago
1432017-02-24T08:01:57 *** lclc_ has quit IRC
1442017-02-24T08:02:10 <jonasschnelli> Here's my valgrind run: https://0bin.net/paste/2xS-7aRGhWA11BlS#uwUOiDB9X4h+puz6AxdtnWiMXF5KJlUhC-WFL8bCy4k
1452017-02-24T08:02:30 <jonasschnelli> This also frightens me: ==59692== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
1462017-02-24T08:05:08 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1472017-02-24T08:05:52 <gmaxwell> what version are you running it against those line number do not agree with my code here.
1482017-02-24T08:06:24 <jonasschnelli> 9949ebfa6a548260858df429f4d0e716e0a26065
1492017-02-24T08:06:29 <jonasschnelli> I think this is 0.14.0rc1
1502017-02-24T08:06:44 *** lclc_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1512017-02-24T08:07:40 <jonasschnelli> my setup: ./configure --enable-zmq --enable-glibc-back-compat --enable-reduce-exports CPPFLAGS=-DDEBUG_LOCKORDER --with-incompatible-bdb
1522017-02-24T08:08:00 <jonasschnelli> (same as the failing travis setup)
1532017-02-24T08:08:10 <gmaxwell> oh geesh we have source files with the same name. bet that'll be fun for anyone trying to build with msvc.
1542017-02-24T08:09:10 <jonasschnelli> you mean the problem when we removed the rpc_ prefix and moved them into the rpc/ folder?
1552017-02-24T08:09:26 *** lclc has quit IRC
1562017-02-24T08:09:40 <gmaxwell> yea, at least last time I used it MSVC couldn't handle source files having the same name even if they were in different directories. :)
1572017-02-24T08:09:40 <jonasschnelli> My IDEs find by filename also doesn't like this
1582017-02-24T08:10:14 <jonasschnelli> We could have kept the rpc_ prefix even after moving them into the specific folder
1592017-02-24T08:12:11 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1602017-02-24T08:12:42 *** lclc_ has quit IRC
1612017-02-24T08:13:16 <gmaxwell> so in that rpc tests I don't see anything that sets up the conman object. But if it's executing those objects it's not null. How is the g_conman setup in the tests?
1622017-02-24T08:13:46 <fanquake> jonasschnelli I can see the same results with valgrind
1632017-02-24T08:13:47 <jonasschnelli> TestingSetup() jas a g_connman = std::unique_ptr<CConnman>(new CConnman(0x1337, 0x1337)); // Deterministic randomness for tests.
1642017-02-24T08:13:50 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1652017-02-24T08:14:47 <fanquake> https://0bin.net/paste/DLBX7+ZYaQ79TrRS#ACJ-Fp8c8aAZrLW2jDShhRMKbnTlxlnRJDkCRhXfpcI
1662017-02-24T08:15:15 <jonasschnelli> Thanks fanquake
1672017-02-24T08:20:44 *** lclc_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1682017-02-24T08:23:13 *** lclc has quit IRC
1692017-02-24T08:28:10 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1702017-02-24T08:28:20 *** whphhg has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1712017-02-24T08:30:41 *** kadoban has quit IRC
1722017-02-24T08:30:52 *** lclc_ has quit IRC
1732017-02-24T08:33:11 <cfields> https://github.com/theuni/bitcoin/commit/72aa3324bc69640937f2fda6a63634bcf1e8c6c1
1742017-02-24T08:33:25 <cfields> should fix the connman issue, though i seriously doubt that's the crasher
1752017-02-24T08:33:44 *** lclc has quit IRC
1762017-02-24T08:33:56 <cfields> (thanks marcofalke for pointing that out earlier)
1772017-02-24T08:34:37 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1782017-02-24T08:35:03 <cfields> i'll PR that in the morning
1792017-02-24T08:42:30 *** lclc_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1802017-02-24T08:44:57 *** lclc has quit IRC
1812017-02-24T08:47:28 *** da2ce7 has quit IRC
1822017-02-24T08:51:44 *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1832017-02-24T08:55:06 *** da2ce7 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1842017-02-24T08:55:36 *** lclc_ has quit IRC
1852017-02-24T09:02:45 *** lclc_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1862017-02-24T09:06:51 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1872017-02-24T09:08:14 *** chjj has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1882017-02-24T09:09:31 *** lclc_ has quit IRC
1892017-02-24T09:10:07 *** fanquake has quit IRC
1902017-02-24T09:11:41 *** jannes has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1912017-02-24T09:21:32 *** lclc_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1922017-02-24T09:22:33 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/692c9eddba67...00285cece814
1932017-02-24T09:22:34 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f81f0d0 Russell Yanofsky: Update sendfrom RPC help to correct coin selection misconception
1942017-02-24T09:22:34 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master 00285ce Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9840: Update sendfrom RPC help to correct coin selection misconception...
1952017-02-24T09:22:56 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9840: Update sendfrom RPC help to correct coin selection misconception (master...pr/fromacct) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9840
1962017-02-24T09:23:36 *** lclc has quit IRC
1972017-02-24T09:25:13 *** go1111111 has quit IRC
1982017-02-24T09:34:38 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
1992017-02-24T09:37:34 *** lclc_ has quit IRC
2002017-02-24T09:42:16 *** lclc_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2012017-02-24T09:44:21 *** e4xit has quit IRC
2022017-02-24T09:44:46 *** lclc has quit IRC
2032017-02-24T09:51:36 *** lclc_ has quit IRC
2042017-02-24T09:53:27 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2052017-02-24T09:54:04 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/00285cece814...dd6e0d630167
2062017-02-24T09:54:05 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master ef9f495 Marko Bencun: Trivial: fix comments referencing AppInit2...
2072017-02-24T09:54:05 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master dd6e0d6 Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9833: Trivial: fix comments referencing AppInit2...
2082017-02-24T09:54:24 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9833: Trivial: fix comments referencing AppInit2 (master...stalecomments) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9833
2092017-02-24T09:56:51 *** AaronvanW has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2102017-02-24T09:56:53 *** lclc_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2112017-02-24T09:58:06 <paveljanik> FWIW - I'm not able to reproduce test_bitcoin failures on any of my machines (different unices) :-(
2122017-02-24T09:58:27 *** lclc has quit IRC
2132017-02-24T10:03:06 <wumpus> darn
2142017-02-24T10:03:06 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2152017-02-24T10:03:21 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9846: doc: Small release notes fixups in the list of pulls (0.14...Mf1702-014doc) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9846
2162017-02-24T10:05:42 <wumpus> there seems to be nothing *special* in the config.log posted in #9850
2172017-02-24T10:05:43 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9850 | test_bitcoin: /usr/include/boost/thread/pthread/recursive_mutex.hpp:104: boost::recursive_mutex::~recursive_mutex(): Assertion `!pthread_mutex_destroy() failed. · Issue #9850 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2182017-02-24T10:05:43 *** lclc_ has quit IRC
2192017-02-24T10:06:10 <wumpus> standard ubuntu 16.04 versions of everything
2202017-02-24T10:08:45 <wumpus> no arguments to configure
2212017-02-24T10:17:16 *** lclc_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2222017-02-24T10:19:52 *** lclc has quit IRC
2232017-02-24T10:21:38 *** jl2012 has quit IRC
2242017-02-24T10:21:50 *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2252017-02-24T10:22:56 <paveljanik> I suspect some travis issue
2262017-02-24T10:23:09 <paveljanik> (even if it was reproduced outside of it)
2272017-02-24T10:24:01 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
2282017-02-24T10:24:52 <wumpus> I forgot something in my testing yesterday; the travis build passes, --enable-glibc-back-compat --enable-reduce-exports and LDFLAGS=-static-libstdc++" . No difference in reproduction, though
2292017-02-24T10:25:12 *** lclc_ has quit IRC
2302017-02-24T10:26:06 <wumpus> I also test it faster now, launch test_bitcoin and kill it after a second (after all, the problem happens just before the Running ... line so there's no need to go all the way)
2312017-02-24T10:30:08 <wumpus> in any case it just works perfectly, every time, no matter what I do. Almost feels like travis is trolling us
2322017-02-24T10:31:45 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2332017-02-24T10:35:35 <gmaxwell> "Why do the patterns of failuers seem to be spelling ascii digits? ...'wouldnt want to give yo..'"
2342017-02-24T10:36:30 <wumpus> hehe, yes that would be a giveaway
2352017-02-24T10:36:55 *** e4xit has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2362017-02-24T10:38:08 * wumpus threw DEBUG_LOCKORDER into the mix. No, that didn't help either
2372017-02-24T10:45:12 <wumpus> never felt so unhappy to see "*** No errors detected"
2382017-02-24T10:49:30 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2392017-02-24T10:52:01 *** chjj has quit IRC
2402017-02-24T10:54:43 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
2412017-02-24T10:54:53 <wumpus> well, so much for trying to reproduce locally, going to try set up a trap for this on travis
2422017-02-24T11:05:46 <wumpus> ok my gdb script is working, this should work
2432017-02-24T11:10:50 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj opened pull request #9851: [do not merge] travis gdb parachute for #9825 (master...2017_02_travisissue) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9851
2442017-02-24T11:18:45 *** Alina-malina_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2452017-02-24T11:26:34 *** Alina-malina_ has quit IRC
2462017-02-24T11:26:34 *** Alina-malina_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2472017-02-24T11:28:30 *** Alina-malina_ is now known as Alina-malina
2482017-02-24T11:41:52 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] zcc0721 opened pull request #9852: Merge remote-tracking branch 'refs/remotes/bitcoin/master' (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9852
2492017-02-24T11:42:47 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9852: Merge remote-tracking branch 'refs/remotes/bitcoin/master' (master...master) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9852
2502017-02-24T11:46:21 *** MarcoFalke has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2512017-02-24T11:47:46 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2522017-02-24T11:49:15 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj pushed 2 new commits to master: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/dd6e0d630167...f19afdbfb4cb
2532017-02-24T11:49:16 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master dc222f8 Karl-Johan Alm: Trivial: Rephrase the definition of difficulty in the code.
2542017-02-24T11:49:16 <bitcoin-git> bitcoin/master f19afdb Wladimir J. van der Laan: Merge #9612: [trivial] Rephrase the definition of difficulty....
2552017-02-24T11:49:32 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] laanwj closed pull request #9612: [trivial] Rephrase the definition of difficulty. (master...clarify-difficulty) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9612
2562017-02-24T11:57:33 *** Sosumi has quit IRC
2572017-02-24T11:58:21 *** lclc has quit IRC
2582017-02-24T12:00:39 <wumpus> wth, one of the builds in #9825 is rebuilding all the dependencies?
2592017-02-24T12:00:41 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9825 | Intermittent FAIL: test/test_bitcoin in Travis · Issue #9825 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2602017-02-24T12:01:12 <wumpus> eh #9851
2612017-02-24T12:01:14 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9851 | [do not merge] travis gdb parachute for #9825 by laanwj · Pull Request #9851 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2622017-02-24T12:01:41 *** e4xit has quit IRC
2632017-02-24T12:04:32 <wumpus> Everything that can go wrong is going wrong, man, it's hard to think of a more nightmarish way to debug things. Well maybe debugging the kernel for GPU cache issues wins by a bit :/
2642017-02-24T12:05:31 *** BashCo_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2652017-02-24T12:06:18 <wumpus> I'm going to cancel all other travis builds to give this one priority, sorry
2662017-02-24T12:08:13 *** BashCo has quit IRC
2672017-02-24T12:10:42 *** wallet42 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2682017-02-24T12:11:04 <wumpus> ah the builds are starting, let's see what surprises await this time
2692017-02-24T12:11:18 <wumpus> NOOOOOOO don't start building ccache :(
2702017-02-24T12:30:57 *** Cory has quit IRC
2712017-02-24T12:41:27 <wumpus> cfields: what would be the best way to skip buildling of dependencies for a PR, for debugging?
2722017-02-24T12:43:40 <wumpus> I don't understand why all three builds of #9851 trigger a complete dependency rebuild, but this way it's not going to work, I need a fast iteration time to have any chance of reproducing the issue
2732017-02-24T12:43:42 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9851 | [do not merge] travis gdb parachute for #9825 by laanwj · Pull Request #9851 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2742017-02-24T12:45:51 *** norotartagen has quit IRC
2752017-02-24T12:47:00 *** norotartagen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2762017-02-24T12:47:23 *** Guest91228 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2772017-02-24T12:49:41 <wumpus> oh not all three, just #3, which is the nowallet one. Could just remove that one.
2782017-02-24T12:49:43 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3 | Encrypt wallet · Issue #3 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
2792017-02-24T12:50:54 *** norotartagen has quit IRC
2802017-02-24T12:51:33 *** Guest91228 has quit IRC
2812017-02-24T12:53:10 *** norotartagen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2822017-02-24T12:56:18 *** norotartagen has quit IRC
2832017-02-24T12:57:34 *** norotartagen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2842017-02-24T13:10:22 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2852017-02-24T13:10:22 *** btcdrak has quit IRC
2862017-02-24T13:11:15 *** btcdrak has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2872017-02-24T13:13:03 *** norotartagen has quit IRC
2882017-02-24T13:22:46 *** Guest91228 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2892017-02-24T13:25:35 *** Guest91228 has quit IRC
2902017-02-24T13:38:14 *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2912017-02-24T13:43:32 *** Cory has quit IRC
2922017-02-24T13:47:38 *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2932017-02-24T13:49:22 *** Cory has quit IRC
2942017-02-24T13:53:57 *** Giszmo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2952017-02-24T13:58:24 *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2962017-02-24T14:04:38 *** Cory has quit IRC
2972017-02-24T14:07:58 *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
2982017-02-24T14:12:43 *** Cory has quit IRC
2992017-02-24T14:16:07 *** Cory has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3002017-02-24T14:18:19 *** Cory has quit IRC
3012017-02-24T14:18:36 <achow101> did the signed binary detached sigs come out yet?
3022017-02-24T14:27:45 <BlueMatt> wumpus: you could do it on your own personal fork?
3032017-02-24T14:27:46 *** Guest91228 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3042017-02-24T14:30:44 *** Guest91228 has quit IRC
3052017-02-24T14:34:59 *** Guest91228 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3062017-02-24T14:35:46 *** jnewbery has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3072017-02-24T14:36:02 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has quit IRC
3082017-02-24T14:37:44 *** Guest91228 has quit IRC
3092017-02-24T14:45:54 <jonasschnelli> Any idea why the LXC gitian initialization takes that long?
3102017-02-24T14:46:08 <jonasschnelli> Here it takes >5mins during "Upgrading system, may take a while"... seems to be very long
3112017-02-24T14:46:31 <jonasschnelli> (step between "install.log" and starting of "build.log")
3122017-02-24T14:51:24 *** Guest91228 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3132017-02-24T14:52:37 *** goksinen is now known as wudayoda
3142017-02-24T14:54:26 *** Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3152017-02-24T14:56:22 *** goksinen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3162017-02-24T14:58:42 *** goksinen is now known as wudayoda_
3172017-02-24T15:00:16 *** wudayoda_ has quit IRC
3182017-02-24T15:03:43 *** Guest49686 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3192017-02-24T15:12:01 *** BashCo_ has quit IRC
3202017-02-24T15:12:37 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3212017-02-24T15:16:52 *** BashCo has quit IRC
3222017-02-24T15:30:07 *** Guyver2 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3232017-02-24T15:36:41 <cfields> wumpus: note that DEBUG=1 is used for the crash case. That adds the extra bounds checking from libstdc++
3242017-02-24T15:40:21 *** lclc has quit IRC
3252017-02-24T15:40:26 *** BashCo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3262017-02-24T15:41:34 <cfields> wumpus: as for rebuilding depends, the travis cache depends on the env vars set. So if you change an env var, it will create a new cache because it looks like a new build that it shouldn't clobber
3272017-02-24T15:42:03 <cfields> where "change" also includes adding/removing env vars
3282017-02-24T15:42:31 *** Guest91228 has quit IRC
3292017-02-24T15:45:33 *** Guest91228 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3302017-02-24T15:48:32 <cfields> gitian builders: sigs for v0.14.0rc2 are pushed
3312017-02-24T15:50:30 *** kadoban has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3322017-02-24T15:58:27 *** wudayoda has quit IRC
3332017-02-24T16:00:36 *** wudayoda has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3342017-02-24T16:13:20 <wumpus> ah so the env vars are the secret :)
3352017-02-24T16:26:27 *** paveljanik has quit IRC
3362017-02-24T16:29:02 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery opened pull request #9853: Fix error codes from various RPCs (master...fixerrorcodes) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9853
3372017-02-24T16:29:50 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery closed pull request #9713: Fix error causes and messages in rpc/net.cpp (master...fixsetbanerrormessages) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9713
3382017-02-24T16:29:57 <bitcoin-git> [bitcoin] jnewbery closed pull request #9714: Return correct error codes from bumpfee() (master...bumpfeeerrormessages) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9714
3392017-02-24T16:34:40 *** paveljanik has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3402017-02-24T16:39:35 <BlueMatt> so now that we have named args someone should probably do a pass and fix the million places that we reject args that are null even when they have a default value, I suppose?
3412017-02-24T16:41:55 <wumpus> BlueMatt: yes - null should be interpreted as the default value, on a call by call basis
3422017-02-24T16:42:06 <wumpus> I intend to get around to that for 0.15
3432017-02-24T16:46:18 <wumpus> in most cases it's trivial
3442017-02-24T16:46:52 <wumpus> there are a few such as getbalance that have slightly different functionality based on the number of arguments, some discussion will be needed there
3452017-02-24T16:51:05 *** abpa has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3462017-02-24T17:06:52 *** lclc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3472017-02-24T17:17:28 *** jannes has quit IRC
3482017-02-24T17:18:20 *** moli_ has quit IRC
3492017-02-24T17:19:58 *** moli_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3502017-02-24T17:20:27 *** moli_ has quit IRC
3512017-02-24T17:20:48 *** moli_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3522017-02-24T17:50:02 *** handlex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3532017-02-24T18:03:32 *** handlex has quit IRC
3542017-02-24T18:13:59 *** norotartagen has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3552017-02-24T18:20:15 *** handlex has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3562017-02-24T18:30:15 *** handlex has quit IRC
3572017-02-24T18:34:08 *** harrymm has quit IRC
3582017-02-24T18:38:07 *** harrymm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3592017-02-24T19:06:49 *** laurentmt has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3602017-02-24T19:13:13 *** laurentmt has quit IRC
3612017-02-24T19:15:22 *** lclc has quit IRC
3622017-02-24T20:13:55 *** bsm117532 is now known as Guest48944
3632017-02-24T20:14:06 *** bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3642017-02-24T20:53:53 *** Squidicc has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3652017-02-24T20:55:20 *** Cheeseo has quit IRC
3662017-02-24T20:55:57 *** Guest49686 is now known as schmidty
3672017-02-24T20:56:43 *** Squidicuz has quit IRC
3682017-02-24T21:12:47 *** go1111111 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3692017-02-24T21:13:10 *** bsm1175322 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3702017-02-24T21:17:23 <sipa> i can't file an issue right now, but my RPi3 bitcoind OOMed, and marked a block invalid as a result
3712017-02-24T21:17:30 <sipa> that's very bad...
3722017-02-24T21:17:36 <sipa> on 0.14.0rc1
3732017-02-24T21:24:45 *** e4xit_ has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3742017-02-24T21:28:08 <cfields> sipa: yikes
3752017-02-24T21:28:27 <cfields> sipa: any idea where it oom'd?
3762017-02-24T21:29:01 *** go1111111 has quit IRC
3772017-02-24T21:59:10 *** cysm has quit IRC
3782017-02-24T21:59:28 *** GreenIsMyPepper has quit IRC
3792017-02-24T22:03:19 *** GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3802017-02-24T22:12:10 *** LeMiner has quit IRC
3812017-02-24T22:13:57 *** cysm has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3822017-02-24T22:14:58 *** JackH has quit IRC
3832017-02-24T22:15:02 *** GreenIsMyPepper has quit IRC
3842017-02-24T22:18:11 *** tripleslash has quit IRC
3852017-02-24T22:18:53 *** Guyver2 has quit IRC
3862017-02-24T22:19:19 *** tripleslash has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3872017-02-24T22:23:03 <sipa> cfields: #9854
3882017-02-24T22:23:05 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/9854 | Bitcoind 0.14.0rc1: OOM -> block marked invalid · Issue #9854 · bitcoin/bitcoin · GitHub
3892017-02-24T22:23:50 *** GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3902017-02-24T22:28:02 *** GreenIsMyPepper has quit IRC
3912017-02-24T22:38:51 *** GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3922017-02-24T22:46:42 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
3932017-02-24T22:49:51 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3942017-02-24T22:54:58 *** limpkin has quit IRC
3952017-02-24T22:55:42 *** jl2012 has quit IRC
3962017-02-24T22:58:34 *** Ylbam has quit IRC
3972017-02-24T23:01:42 *** jl2012 has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3982017-02-24T23:04:12 *** Ylbam has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
3992017-02-24T23:05:24 *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4002017-02-24T23:05:25 *** Cheeseo has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4012017-02-24T23:06:31 *** limpkin has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4022017-02-24T23:10:34 <cfields> sipa: seems i just managed to bring down my dev box while testing a fix (forcing OOM). Hope you're happy :)
4032017-02-24T23:11:32 <cfields> woohoo, rescued
4042017-02-24T23:14:15 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4052017-02-24T23:16:45 <BlueMatt> cfields: so you have a fix? or should I go look into it?
4062017-02-24T23:17:09 <cfields> BlueMatt: yea, i have a patch ready. I'm uneasy about it though, so debate welcome
4072017-02-24T23:17:13 <cfields> sec
4082017-02-24T23:18:17 <BlueMatt> k
4092017-02-24T23:18:53 *** jtimon has quit IRC
4102017-02-24T23:22:03 <cfields> BlueMatt: see 9854
4112017-02-24T23:22:07 <BlueMatt> oh
4122017-02-24T23:22:21 <BlueMatt> hmmmm, I like that
4132017-02-24T23:22:27 <BlueMatt> wait, does this apply to more than bad_alloc?
4142017-02-24T23:23:13 <cfields> no
4152017-02-24T23:23:17 <BlueMatt> if we can make it apply only to std::bad_alloc then I'm all for it (or is there a list of all the things this could apply to?)
4162017-02-24T23:23:17 <gmaxwell> cfields: next time replace malloc with a wrapper. :P
4172017-02-24T23:23:22 <BlueMatt> lol
4182017-02-24T23:23:54 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: sipa pointed out the error to me earlier in private, my comment:
4192017-02-24T23:23:57 <gmaxwell> 11:55 <gmaxwell> God damnit. it really should not reject the block because of a fucking exception!
4202017-02-24T23:23:57 <cfields> gmaxwell: you mean new? :)
4212017-02-24T23:24:00 <gmaxwell> 11:55 <gmaxwell> I hate that we use exceptions for error handling in the seralization.
4222017-02-24T23:24:03 <gmaxwell> 11:56 <gmaxwell> maybe we can wrap the allocator so that failures kill the process.
4232017-02-24T23:24:20 <gmaxwell> cfields: well I mean the underlying libc function new calls, which is malloc. (same way tcmalloc replaces the allocator)
4242017-02-24T23:24:25 <cfields> gmaxwell: this isn't our exception. This is a c++ feature.
4252017-02-24T23:24:51 <cfields> gmaxwell: right, this overrides what happens when "new" fails. So this is essentially what you're asking for
4262017-02-24T23:25:09 <gmaxwell> cfields: no no: Our mistake is that a var int decode failure is an exception. Because of this we cannot wrap block processing with a catch * {tell user their hardware is befucked or someting bad happened}.
4272017-02-24T23:25:54 <cfields> gmaxwell: oh, i see what you mean
4282017-02-24T23:26:03 <gmaxwell> Which basically means that random programming errors that throw exceptions can cause blocks to be rejected intead of the node shutting down, which is exactly what produced the bdb locks as a fork rather than a brief DOS.
4292017-02-24T23:26:42 <BlueMatt> wait, ok, so has someone identified what actually happened here?
4302017-02-24T23:26:49 <gmaxwell> There are basically three states for block processing: "I have a valid block", "I have an invalid block.", and "I notice that I am confused." the latter should shut down without marking the block invalid.
4312017-02-24T23:26:51 <sipa> gmaxwell: i think you're overgeneralizing
4322017-02-24T23:27:04 <cfields> gmaxwell: i completely agree. but this is a specific case that can be easily detected
4332017-02-24T23:27:11 <sipa> gmaxwell: problems during deserialization shouldn't _ever_ cause a block to be marked invalid
4342017-02-24T23:27:19 <gmaxwell> yes, this one we can work around. But where is the next one? this is the second one of those btw.
4352017-02-24T23:27:26 <gmaxwell> Leveldb internal errors also used to do this to us.
4362017-02-24T23:27:27 *** wudayoda has quit IRC
4372017-02-24T23:27:36 <gmaxwell> Third if you count bdb's internal errors.
4382017-02-24T23:27:40 <cfields> gmaxwell: so let's fix that independently :)
4392017-02-24T23:27:52 <gmaxwell> I'm fine with your general fix approach for now.
4402017-02-24T23:27:57 *** wudayoda has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4412017-02-24T23:28:29 <cfields> there's one gotcha there, though... prevector calls malloc directly
4422017-02-24T23:28:38 <gmaxwell> I am lamenting that C++ code randomly calls exceptions without documenting the possiblity clearly. And that we make use of exceptions to mark invalidity. Which means that random internal errors can mark invalidity. And you all know I hate exceptions, so that bias is not in question. :)
4432017-02-24T23:29:07 <gmaxwell> cfields: why are you replacing new and not malloc? (I don't have a strong opinion, it's just a question)
4442017-02-24T23:29:09 <sipa> cfields: it could use new[] instead, i think
4452017-02-24T23:29:19 <sipa> gmaxwell: how do you replace malloc?
4462017-02-24T23:29:39 <gmaxwell> glibc has a specific override. But perhaps there is no portable way?
4472017-02-24T23:29:49 <sipa> you'd need to do it with link-time magic, and hope that libstdc++ doesn't bypass it somehow
4482017-02-24T23:29:49 <BlueMatt> I'm still confused, where do we use such exceptions to mark invalidity?
4492017-02-24T23:29:53 <sipa> BlueMatt: i don't know!
4502017-02-24T23:29:56 <sipa> we shouldn't!
4512017-02-24T23:30:11 <BlueMatt> yes, I dont see the specific issue here, yet
4522017-02-24T23:30:22 <gmaxwell> sipa: your logs showed we did exactly that.
4532017-02-24T23:30:28 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: no they dont
4542017-02-24T23:30:38 <BlueMatt> "ERROR: ConnectBlock(): inputs missing/spent"
4552017-02-24T23:30:38 <cfields> BlueMatt: my take-away from the above was that if we didn't throw in deserialization, we could just wrap acceptblock and activatebestchain in try/catch(), and abort any time something's caught
4562017-02-24T23:30:43 <BlueMatt> that was after the bad_alloc
4572017-02-24T23:31:00 <cfields> gmaxwell: memory allocation failed, then the _next block_ was rejected
4582017-02-24T23:31:07 <BlueMatt> cfields: yes, and we should do that, probably still
4592017-02-24T23:31:12 <sipa> gmaxwell: my assumption is that the error _is_ caught somewhere, not passed up, and as a result a normal "fail" return value is returned, and a higher layer interprets that as invalid block
4602017-02-24T23:31:26 <sipa> gmaxwell: i don't think we have anywhere a direct "exception? mark invalid!" logic
4612017-02-24T23:31:41 <BlueMatt> sipa: script interpreter does
4622017-02-24T23:31:44 <BlueMatt> but thats it i believe
4632017-02-24T23:32:25 <BlueMatt> (in the debug log you posted I do not believe that was the error, either)
4642017-02-24T23:32:57 <gmaxwell> we do all over the place! we have a generic catch that returns false on functions that must be true for validity.
4652017-02-24T23:33:09 <BlueMatt> gmaxwell: we do?
4662017-02-24T23:33:19 <gmaxwell> Open up validation.cpp basically every catch in there does this.
4672017-02-24T23:33:20 <cfields> sipa: my take was that the block was accepted, but we didn't switch to the new tip, so the next block failed when looking up inputs
4682017-02-24T23:33:23 <BlueMatt> only script interpreter i believe
4692017-02-24T23:34:31 <gmaxwell> okay it's not as bad as I thought.
4702017-02-24T23:34:39 <sipa> did we in 0.14 introduce the SendRejectsAndCheckIfBanned(pfrom, connman) call in net_processing:2754 ?
4712017-02-24T23:34:53 <BlueMatt> well now that i check it is worse than I thought :p
4722017-02-24T23:34:53 <sipa> which before used to be inside the catch block?
4732017-02-24T23:34:53 <BlueMatt> some disk reads shit that probably should be smarter than it is
4742017-02-24T23:35:09 <BlueMatt> sipa: yes, and no, before it didnt exist
4752017-02-24T23:35:15 <BlueMatt> (was only in SendMessages)
4762017-02-24T23:35:15 <cfields> sipa: it's new, we used to only send rejects+ban from SendMessages()
4772017-02-24T23:36:07 <sipa> i see
4782017-02-24T23:38:09 <cfields> imo the throw happened somewhere around SetBestChain, it was just caught in ProcessMessages because that's the only place we do a generic catch(...)
4792017-02-24T23:38:11 <gmaxwell> BlueMatt: well I thought it was _every_ one of them, but I checked readblockfromdisk and it's not.
4802017-02-24T23:42:43 *** wasi has quit IRC
4812017-02-24T23:49:35 *** jtimon has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4822017-02-24T23:53:02 *** GreenIsMyPepper has quit IRC
4832017-02-24T23:53:27 *** GreenIsMyPepper has joined #bitcoin-core-dev
4842017-02-24T23:56:10 *** wasi has joined #bitcoin-core-dev