19:00:54 <wumpus> #startmeeting 19:00:57 <luke-jr> hi 19:01:02 <hebasto> hi 19:01:04 <sipsorcery> hi 19:01:15 <aj> hi 19:01:23 <wumpus> #bitcoin -core-dev Meeting: achow101 aj amiti ariard bluematt cfields Chris_Stewart_5 digi_james dongcarl elichai2 emilengler fanquake fjahr gleb glozow gmaxwell gwillen hebasto instagibbs jamesob jb55 jeremyrubin jl2012 jnewbery jonasschnelli jonatack jtimon kallewoof kanzure kvaciral lightlike luke-jr maaku marcofalke meshcollider michagogo moneyball morcos nehan NicolasDorier paveljanik 19:01:25 <wumpus> petertodd phantomcircuit promag provoostenator ryanofsky sdaftuar sipa vasild wumpus 19:01:45 <achow101> hi 19:01:56 <sipa> hi 19:02:06 <ariard> hi 19:02:17 <wumpus> no proposed meeting topics in http://gnusha.org/bitcoin-core-dev/proposedmeetingtopics.txt (i think, do remind me if i missed anything) 19:02:39 <jamesob> hi 19:02:41 <wumpus> you can propose a meeting topic with #proposedmeetingtopic <topic> during the week, or now 19:03:34 <wumpus> last week we had a very full meeting so it's fine to have a short one this week 19:03:56 <sipa> i'm ok with short meetings 19:04:42 <jnewbery> hi 19:04:43 <emzy> hi 19:04:44 <wumpus> (also, for some people the meeting is an hour later due to DST) 19:04:51 <kanzure> hi 19:05:01 <luke-jr> wumpus: but that was a few weeks ago :P 19:05:10 <wumpus> no :P 19:05:13 <sipa> luke-jr: not everywhere 19:05:16 <wumpus> for me it's this week 19:05:20 <jonasschnelli> hi 19:05:40 <wumpus> #topic High priority for review 19:05:51 <emzy> for some it is next week. 19:06:02 <luke-jr> weird 19:06:16 <wumpus> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/projects/8 8 blockers, 2 chasing concept ACK 19:06:26 <luke-jr> glad Florida legislature cancelled DST, even if nobody is following that in practice yet <.< 19:06:34 <wumpus> anything to add, remove, or that is ready to merge? 19:07:05 <ariard> #19160 getting hotter 19:07:08 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/19160 | multiprocess: Add basic spawn and IPC support by ryanofsky ÷ Pull Request #19160 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:07:10 <wumpus> luke-jr: would be glad if they did that here too 19:07:17 <sipa> can i have #21330 ? 19:07:19 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21330 | Deal with missing data in signature hashes more consistently by sipa ÷ Pull Request #21330 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:07:20 <jnewbery> wumpus: can I have #21160 please? 19:07:21 <jeremyrubin> hi 19:07:22 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21160 | net/net processing: Move tx inventory into net_processing by jnewbery ÷ Pull Request #21160 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:08:02 <wumpus> jnewbery: 21160 already is on there i think? 19:08:02 <luke-jr> #21392 is rtm 19:08:06 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/21392 | Implement BIP 8 based Speedy Trial activation by achow101 ÷ Pull Request #21392 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:08:32 <jnewbery> wumpus: oh! Good :) 19:08:35 <glozow> hi 19:08:50 <wumpus> sipa: added 19:10:21 <glozow> wumpus: could i get #20833 please? 19:10:24 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20833 | rpc/validation: enable packages through testmempoolaccept by glozow ÷ Pull Request #20833 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:10:59 <wumpus> glozow: sure, added 19:11:15 <glozow> wumpus: thanks! 19:11:38 <wumpus> anything else to add? any other topics? 19:12:26 <aj> is #20272 really indicating that clang's made negative lock anotations useless? 19:12:30 <gribble> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/20272 | Add missing thread safety annotations by vasild ÷ Pull Request #20272 ÷ bitcoin/bitcoin ÷ GitHub 19:12:47 <MarcoFalke> So there is no configure option to turn that off? 19:13:00 <wumpus> #topic Clang negative lock annotations 19:13:18 <MarcoFalke> I can confirm the warnings on clang-12 and clang-13 19:13:44 <MarcoFalke> I think there should be a build option (default on) to turn the warnings off 19:13:57 <wumpus> I've also seen the warnings (clang 13) 19:14:00 <aj> i thought when i tried locks_excluded it didn't catch very much 19:14:47 <MarcoFalke> locks_excluded only runs inside one function scope, no? 19:15:24 <aj> if i ever knew, i've forgotten 19:15:47 <hebasto> will `-Wno-thread-safety-negative` silent warnings? 19:17:44 <aj> oh, maybe we can keep negative locks for class member mutexexes and just get rid of them for globals like cs_main? 19:18:02 <hebasto> ^ nice 19:18:09 <sipa> what are negative locks? 19:18:32 <aj> EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(!mutex_foo) << i'm going to lock mutex_foo in the function, so please don't already have it locked 19:18:41 <sipa> ah i see 19:18:45 <MarcoFalke> They'd still be leaking outside the class if they are public (and supposed to be taken by the caller) 19:21:26 <wumpus> ok, i think that concludes the topic 19:21:35 <aj> MarcoFalke: so maybe we can keep them for private class mutexes :-/ 19:22:26 <MarcoFalke> hebasto: doesn't print any warnings: ./configure CC=clang CXX=clang++ CXXFLAGS="-Wno-thread-safety-negative -O1" 19:23:59 <hebasto> MarcoFalke: but this is a workaround only, right? 19:24:22 <MarcoFalke> hebasto: It restores the clang-11 behavior 19:26:04 <wumpus> #endmeeting