Xtreme Thinblocks v12.0

[ptschip]

Here's the latest ported to v12. All working and tested.

@gandrewstone I cleaned up the thinblocks.h a bit but the classes should in future be using a template. I believe since @YarkoL is going to be working on extending xthinblocks to 32bit, 40bit etc...hashes he'll need to refactor and use a template for that anyway. For me to do it now just for the sake of one small subclass seems a bit much work and then re-testing effort on top of it.

@gandrewstone I moved some functions and declarations to unlimited.cpp. I've done the easy stuff but am having difficulty with some of them claiming that CNode is not declared but as far as I can tell it is...I'm sure I'm doing something wrong that is so simple just I can't see it. I tried with HandleBlockMessage and SendSeededBloomFilter but It seems to be a bit of a hair pulling exercise and I'm going around in circles.

[ptschip]

@gandrewstone Ok, I was able to get the SendSeededBloomFilter and HandleBlockMessage out and put into unlimited.cpp.

[ptschip]

@gandrewstone I've taken out all the functions and also made comments in the code referring to BU. I'm wondering though whether for the code that doesn't lend itself well to being put into functions if we should rather put in comments around the code such as //BU: Xtreme thinblocks - begin section and then // BU: Xtreme thinblocks - end section. So that on the next release we can just grep through the files looking for those BU sections?

[ptschip]

@gandrewstone

I think this is pretty much done...can you take another look.

The only areas I really couldn't take out were starting at line 4588 and 5938 of main.cpp as there is some sort of compiler issue, something to do with the way they coded MarkBlockAsInFlight().

Areas I left in I surrounded with //BUIP010 begin and end sections.

Also, I left in the four new message type in main.cpp since there should never be a merge conflict with those.

Let me know what you think...

[ptschip]

Made an update to HaveThinBlockNodeConnections. There was a bug there that could cause nodes to form a kind of deadlock where no new blocks could get downloaded if they were cross connected using "connect-thinblock=ip" and when they had no other thinblock node connections. Now it doesn't matter how many or few connect-thinblock connections, either in/outbound there are. Also, it speeds up that part of the code because we don't have to repeatedly call "findnode" which then repeatedly locks/unlocks vNodes.

[sickpig]

Hi Peter I've just built xthinkblock_0.12 branch and I got those warnings (ubuntu 14.04 64bit, gcc 4.8.4) :

main.cpp: In function ‘bool ProcessMessage(CNode*, std::string, CDataStream&, int64_t)’:
main.cpp:4460:18: warning: the address of ‘bool IsThinBlocksEnabled()’ will always evaluate as ‘true’ [-Waddress]
if (!IsThinBlocksEnabled)
^
main.cpp:4536:32: warning: the address of ‘bool IsThinBlocksEnabled()’ will always evaluate as ‘true’ [-Waddress]
if (IsThinBlocksEnabled)
^
main.cpp:4977:25: warning: the address of ‘bool IsThinBlocksEnabled()’ will always evaluate as ‘true’ [-Waddress]
} else if (!IsThinBlocksEnabled) {

CXX libbitcoin_server_a-net.o
At global scope:
cc1plus: warning: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-self-assign" [enabled by default]
CXX libbitcoin_server_a-noui.o

db/memtable.cc: In member function ‘void leveldb::MemTable::Add(leveldb::SequenceNumber, leveldb::ValueType, const leveldb::Slice&, const leveldb::Slice&)’:
db/memtable.cc:104:34: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions [-Wsign-compare]
assert((p + val_size) - buf == encoded_len);
^

util/bloom.cc: In member function ‘virtual void leveldb::{anonymous}::BloomFilterPolicy::CreateFilter(const leveldb::Slice_, int, std::string_) const’:
util/bloom.cc:50:28: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions [-Wsign-compare]
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
^

util/logging.cc: In function ‘bool leveldb::ConsumeDecimalNumber(leveldb::Slice_, uint64_t_)’:
util/logging.cc:58:53: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned integer expressions [-Wsign-compare](v == kMaxUint64/10 && delta > kMaxUint64%10)) {
^

[ptschip]

closing as not needed.