## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Currently, the `nSubsidyBase` calculation relies on difficulty. This
leads to variable Block Subsidity.
When Platform will be live, it would constantly require blocks
difficulty in order to calculate the `platformReward` (which relies on
Block Subsidy)
cc @QuantumExplorer
## What was done?
Starting from v20 activation, `nSubsidyBase` will no longer rely on
difficulty and will be constant to 5.
## How Has This Been Tested?
## Breaking Changes
Block rewards will differ.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
this change saw a ~38% performance improvement in header sync reindex
reproduce via `time ./src/qt/dash-qt --nowallet --testnet --reindex
--stopatheight=5`
On Develop this took average of 1:48 to finish, on this branch it took
1:07
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Slow header / block validation
## What was done?
Pass around cached block hash
## How Has This Been Tested?
Reindexed testnet
## Breaking Changes
None
## Checklist:
_Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes that
apply._
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Implementation of accepted proposal:
https://www.dashcentral.org/p/TREASURY-REALLOCATION-60-20-20
## What was done?
Once Masternode Reward Location Reallocation activates:
- Treasury is bumped to 20% of block subsidy.
- Block reward shares are immediately set to 75% for MN and 25% miners.
(Previous reallocation periods are dropped)
MN reward share should be 75% of block reward in order to represent 60%
of the block subsidy. (according to the proposal)
- `governancebudget` is returned from `getgovernanceinfo` RPC.
## How Has This Been Tested?
`block_reward_reallocation_tests`
## Breaking Changes
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Unlike bitcoin we are using PREVIOUS block in `GetBlockSubsidy()`.
That creates special case for genesis block, because it doesn't have
previous block. In this special case instead of calling
`GetBlockSubsidy` should be used pre-calculated value. To avoid
confusion for new code and simplify implementation, there's introduced a
new method `GetBlockSubsidyPrev` that has other interface: it takes
pointer `CBlockIndex* prev` in agruments instead pair of height + nbits.
These changes are follow-up for #5501
## What was done?
Implemented new method `GetBlockSubsidyPrev()` and used instead of
`GetBlockSubsidy` when it is more convenient.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
5021810650afc3073c2af6953ff046ad4d27a1fc Make CanFlushToDisk a const member function (practicalswift)
281cf995547f7683a9e9186bc6384a9fb6035d10 Do not run functions with necessary side-effects in assert() (practicalswift)
Pull request description:
Do not run functions with necessary side-effects in `assert()`.
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
Code review ACK 5021810650afc3073c2af6953ff046ad4d27a1fc
sipa:
utACK 5021810650afc3073c2af6953ff046ad4d27a1fc
theStack:
Code Review ACK 5021810650afc3073c2af6953ff046ad4d27a1fc 🟢
Tree-SHA512: 38b7faccc2f16a499f9b7b1b962b49eb58580b2a2bbf63ea49dcc418a5ecc8f21a0972fa953f66db9509c7239af67cfa2f9266423fd220963d091034d7332b96
501e6ab4e778d8f4e95fdc807eeb8644df16203b doc: Add documentation for 'checklevel' argument in 'verifychain' RPC call (Calvin Kim)
Pull request description:
Rationale: When ```bitcoin-cli help verifychain``` is called, the user doesn't get any documentation about the ```checklevel``` argument, leading to issues like #18995.
This PR addresses that issue and adds documentation for what each level does, and that each level includes the checks of the previous levels.
ACKs for top commit:
jonatack:
ACK 501e6ab4e778d8f4e95fdc807eeb8644df16203b `git diff 292ed3c 501e6ab` shows only change since last review is the verifychain RPCHelpMan edit; rebuild and retested manually anyway
MarcoFalke:
ACK 501e6ab4e778d8f4e95fdc807eeb8644df16203b 🚝
Tree-SHA512: 09239f79c25b5c3022b8eb1f76198ba681305d7e8775038e46becffe5f6a14c572e0c5d06b0723fe9d4a015ec42c9f7ca7b80a2a93df0b1b66f5a84a80eeeeb1
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
During implementation #5469 (master node hard-fork) I noticed that some
parts of `CChainParams` are deprecated and can be removed.
## What was done?
1. removed methods from `CChainParams` that have no implementation at
all:
- UpdateSubsidyAndDiffParams
- UpdateLLMQChainLocks
- UpdateLLMQTestParams
- UpdateLLMQDevnetParams
2. removed method `BIP9CheckMasternodesUpgraded` from `CChainParams` and
a flag `check_mn_protocol` from `versionbitsinfo`.
(to follow-up dashpay/dash#2594)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run functional/unit tests.
## Breaking Changes
N/A
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone _(for repository
code-owners and collaborators only)_
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
Many objects created and functions called by passing `const
std::unique_ptr<Obj>& obj` instead directly passing `Obj& obj`
In some cases it is indeed needed, but in most cases it is just extra
complexity that is better to avoid.
Motivation:
- providing reference to object instead `unique_ptr` is giving warranty
that there's no `nullptr` and no need to keep it in mind
- value inside unique_ptr by reference can be changed externally and
instead `nullptr` it can turn to real object later (or in opposite)
- code is shorter but cleaner
Based on that this refactoring is useful as it reduces mental load when
reading or writing code.
`std::unique` should be used ONLY for owning object, but not for passing
it everywhere.
## What was done?
Replaced most of usages `std::unique_ptr<Obj>& obj` to `Obj& obj`.
Btw, in several cases implementation assumes that object can be nullptr
and replacement to reference is not possible.
Even using raw pointer is not possible, because the empty
std::unique_ptr can be initialized later somewhere in code.
For example, in `src/init.cpp` there's called `PeerManager::make` and
pass unique_ptr to the `node.llmq_ctx` that would be initialized way
later.
That is out of scope this PR.
List of cases, where reference to `std::unique_ptr` stayed as they are:
- `std::unique_ptr<LLMQContext>& llmq_ctx` in `PeerManagerImpl`,
`PeerManager` and `CDSNotificationInterface`
- `std::unique_ptr<CDeterministicMNManager>& dmnman` in
`CDSNotificationInterface`
Also `CChainState` have 3 references to `unique_ptr` that can't be
replaced too:
- `std::unique_ptr<llmq::CChainLocksHandler>& m_clhandler;`
- `std::unique_ptr<llmq::CInstantSendManager>& m_isman;`
- `std::unique_ptr<llmq::CQuorumBlockProcessor>&
m_quorum_block_processor;`
## How Has This Been Tested?
Run unit/functional tests.
## Breaking Changes
No breaking changes, all of these changes - are internal APIs for Dash
Core developers only.
## Checklist:
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [x] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [x] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
- [x] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
---------
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
e09c701e0110350f78366fb837308c086b6503c0 scripted-diff: Bump copyright of files changed in 2020 (MarcoFalke)
6cbe6209646db8914b87bf6edbc18c6031a16f1e scripted-diff: Replace CCriticalSection with RecursiveMutex (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
`RecursiveMutex` better clarifies that the mutex is recursive, see also the standard library naming: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/recursive_mutex
For that reason, and to avoid different people asking me the same question repeatedly (e.g. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/15932#pullrequestreview-339175124 ), remove the outdated alias `CCriticalSection` with a scripted-diff
2e42050b7fc61201f202438e8cd4383a06eb98d5 doc: fix undo data filename (s/undo???.dat/rev???.dat/) (Sebastian Falbesoner)
Pull request description:
This typo was discovered in the course of a review club to #20827, see https://bitcoincore.reviews/20827#l-31.
ACKs for top commit:
shaavan:
ACK 2e42050b7fc61201f202438e8cd4383a06eb98d5
Tree-SHA512: 0c7a00dce24c03bee6d37265d5b4bc97e976c3f3910af1113f967f6298940f892d6fb517f7b154f32ccedb365060314d4d78d5eb2a9c68b25f0859a628209cd3
3004d5a12d09d94bfc4dee2a8e8f2291996a4aaf [validation] Remove fMissingInputs from AcceptToMemoryPool() (John Newbery)
c428622a5bb1e37b2e6ab2c52791ac05d9271238 [validation] Remove unused first_invalid parameter from ProcessNewBlockHeaders() (John Newbery)
7204c6434b944f6ad51b3c895837729d3aa56eea [validation] Remove useless ret parameter from Invalid() (John Newbery)
1a37de4b3174d19a6d8691ae07e92b32fdfaef11 [validation] Remove error() calls from Invalid() calls (John Newbery)
067981e49246822421a7bcc720491427e1dba8a3 [validation] Tidy Up ValidationResult class (John Newbery)
a27a2957ed9afbe5a96caa5f0f4cbec730d27460 [validation] Add CValidationState subclasses (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
Carries out some remaining tidy-ups remaining after PR 15141:
- split ValidationState into TxValidationState and BlockValidationState (commit from ajtowns)
- various minor code style tidy-ups to the ValidationState class
- remove the useless `ret` parameter from `ValidationState::Invalid()`
- remove the now unused `first_invalid` parameter from `ProcessNewBlockHeaders()`
- remove the `fMissingInputs` parameter from `AcceptToMemoryPool()`, and deal with missing inputs the same way as other errors by using the `TxValidationState` object.
Tip for reviewers (thanks ryanofsky!): The first commit ("[validation] Add CValidationState subclasses" ) is huge and can be easier to start reviewing if you revert the rote, mechanical changes:
Substitute the commit hash of commit "[validation] Add CValidationState subclasses" for <CommitHash> in the commands below.
```sh
git checkout <CommitHash>
git grep -l ValidationState | xargs sed -i 's/BlockValidationState\|TxValidationState/CValidationState/g'
git grep -l ValidationResult | xargs sed -i 's/BlockValidationResult\|TxValidationResult/ValidationInvalidReason/g'
git grep -l MaybePunish | xargs sed -i 's/MaybePunishNode\(ForBlock\|ForTx\)/MaybePunishNode/g'
git diff HEAD^
```
After that it's possible to easily see the mechanical changes with:
```sh
git log -p -n1 -U0 --word-diff-regex=. <CommitHash>
```
ACKs for top commit:
laanwj:
ACK 3004d5a12d09d94bfc4dee2a8e8f2291996a4aaf
amitiuttarwar:
code review ACK 3004d5a12d09d94bfc4dee2a8e8f2291996a4aaf. Also built & ran tests locally.
fjahr:
Code review ACK 3004d5a12d09d94bfc4dee2a8e8f2291996a4aaf . Only nit style change and pure virtual destructor added since my last review.
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 3004d5a12d09d94bfc4dee2a8e8f2291996a4aaf. Just whitespace change and pure virtual destructor added since last review.
Tree-SHA512: 511de1fb380a18bec1944ea82b513b6192df632ee08bb16344a2df3c40811a88f3872f04df24bc93a41643c96c48f376a04551840fd804a961490d6c702c3d36
9075d13153ce06cd59a45644831ecc43126e1e82 [docs] Add release notes for removal of REJECT reasons (John Newbery)
04a2f326ec0f06fb4fce1c4f93500752f05dede8 [validation] Fix REJECT message comments (John Newbery)
e9d5a59e34ff2d538d8f5315efd9908bf24d0fdc [validation] Remove REJECT code from CValidationState (John Newbery)
0053e16714323c1694c834fdca74f064a1a33529 [logging] Don't log REJECT code when transaction is rejected (John Newbery)
a1a07cfe99fc8cee30ba5976dc36b47b1f6532ab [validation] Fix peer punishment for bad blocks (John Newbery)
Pull request description:
We no longer send BIP 61 REJECT messages, so there's no need to set
a REJECT code in the CValidationState object.
Note that there is a minor bug fix in p2p behaviour here. Because the
call to `MaybePunishNode()` in `PeerLogicValidation::BlockChecked()` only
previously happened if the REJECT code was > 0 and < `REJECT_INTERNAL`,
then there are cases were `MaybePunishNode()` can get called where it
wasn't previously:
- when `AcceptBlockHeader()` fails with `CACHED_INVALID`.
- when `AcceptBlockHeader()` fails with `BLOCK_MISSING_PREV`.
Note that `BlockChecked()` cannot fail with an 'internal' reject code. The
only internal reject code was `REJECT_HIGHFEE`, which was only set in
ATMP.
This reverts a minor bug introduced in 5d08c9c579.
ACKs for top commit:
ariard:
ACK 9075d13, changes since last reviewed are splitting them in separate commits to ease understanding and fix nits
fjahr:
ACK 9075d13153ce06cd59a45644831ecc43126e1e82, confirmed diff to last review was fixing nits in docs/comments.
ryanofsky:
Code review ACK 9075d13153ce06cd59a45644831ecc43126e1e82. Only changes since last review are splitting the main commit and updating comments
Tree-SHA512: 58e8a1a4d4e6f156da5d29fb6ad6a62fc9c594bbfc6432b3252e962d0e9e10149bf3035185dc5320c46c09f3e49662bc2973ec759679c0f3412232087cb8a3a7
b6aadcd5b4350a6ebcd57e88e7a0853cedf7c2fb build: Add -Werror=mismatched-tags (Hennadii Stepanov)
1485124291368c4a2ca8ea09c18e813f1dbabf5c Fix -Wmismatched-tags warnings (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
Warnings were introduced in #20749:
```
./validation.h:43:1: warning: class 'CCheckpointData' was previously declared as a struct; this is valid, but may result in linker errors under the Microsoft C++ ABI [-Wmismatched-tags]
class CCheckpointData;
^
./chainparams.h:24:8: note: previous use is here
struct CCheckpointData {
^
./validation.h:43:1: note: did you mean struct here?
class CCheckpointData;
^~~~~
struct
1 warning generated.
```
This change fixes AppVeyor build: https://ci.appveyor.com/project/DrahtBot/bitcoin/builds/37547435
ACKs for top commit:
glozow:
utACK b6aadcd5b4🚗
practicalswift:
cr ACK b6aadcd5b4350a6ebcd57e88e7a0853cedf7c2fb: patch looks correct
Tree-SHA512: 3ac887ebdbf9a1ae33c1fd5381b3b8d83388ad557ddeb55013acd42bb9752a5bd009e3a0eed52644a023a7a0dda1c159277981af82f58fb0abfe60b84e01bf29
fafb381af8279b2d2ca768df0bf68d7eb036a2f9 Remove mempool global (MarcoFalke)
fa0359c5b30730744aa8a7cd9ffab79ded91041f Remove mempool global from p2p (MarcoFalke)
eeee1104d78eb59a582ee1709ff4ac2c33ee1190 Remove mempool global from init (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
This refactor unlocks some nice potential features, such as, but not limited to:
* Removing the fee estimates global (would avoid slightly fragile workarounds such as #18766)
* Making the mempool optional for a "blocksonly" operation mode
Even absent those features, the new code without the global should be easier to maintain, read and write tests for.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
utACK fafb381af8279b2d2ca768df0bf68d7eb036a2f9
hebasto:
ACK fafb381af8279b2d2ca768df0bf68d7eb036a2f9, I have reviewed the code and it looks OK, I agree it can be merged.
darosior:
ACK fafb381af8279b2d2ca768df0bf68d7eb036a2f9
Tree-SHA512: a2e696dc377e2e81eaf9c389e6d13dde4a48d81f3538df88f4da502d3012dd61078495140ab5a5854f360a06249fe0e1f6a094c4e006d8b5cc2552a946becf26
fa0572d0f3b083b4c8e2e883a66e2b198c6779f1 Pass mempool reference to chainstate constructor (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Next step toward #19556
Instead of relying on the mempool global, each chainstate is given a reference to a mempool to keep up to date with the tip (block connections, disconnections, reorgs, ...)
ACKs for top commit:
promag:
Code review ACK fa0572d0f3b083b4c8e2e883a66e2b198c6779f1.
darosior:
ACK fa0572d0f3b083b4c8e2e883a66e2b198c6779f1
hebasto:
ACK fa0572d0f3b083b4c8e2e883a66e2b198c6779f1, reviewed and tested on Linux Mint 20 (x86_64).
Tree-SHA512: 12184d33ae5797438d03efd012a07ba3e4ffa0d817c7a0877743f3d7a7656fe279280c751554fc035ccd0058166153b6c6c308a98b2d6b13998922617ad95c4c
fab558612278909df93bdf88f5727b04f13aef0f doc: Use precise permission flags where possible (MarcoFalke)
Pull request description:
Instead of mentioning the all-encompassing `-whitelist*` settings, change the docs to mention the exact permission flag that will influence the behaviour.
This is needed because in the future, the too-broad `-whitelist*` settings (they either include *all* permission flags or apply to *all* peers) might be deprecated to require the permission flags to be enumerated.
Alternatively, in the future there could be an RPC to set the net permission flags on an existing connection, in which case the `-whitelist*` terminology is of no help.
ACKs for top commit:
jnewbery:
reACK fab558612278909df93bdf88f5727b04f13aef0f
fjahr:
Code review ACK fab558612278909df93bdf88f5727b04f13aef0f
jonatack:
ACK fab558612278909df93bdf88f5727b04f13aef0f
Tree-SHA512: c7dea3e577d90103bb2b0ffab7b7c8640b388932a3a880f69e2b70747fc9213dc1f437085671fd54c902ec2a578458b8a2fae6dbe076642fb88efbf9fa9e679c
<!--
*** Please remove the following help text before submitting: ***
Provide a general summary of your changes in the Title above
Pull requests without a rationale and clear improvement may be closed
immediately.
Please provide clear motivation for your patch and explain how it
improves
Dash Core user experience or Dash Core developer experience
significantly:
* Any test improvements or new tests that improve coverage are always
welcome.
* All other changes should have accompanying unit tests (see
`src/test/`) or
functional tests (see `test/`). Contributors should note which tests
cover
modified code. If no tests exist for a region of modified code, new
tests
should accompany the change.
* Bug fixes are most welcome when they come with steps to reproduce or
an
explanation of the potential issue as well as reasoning for the way the
bug
was fixed.
* Features are welcome, but might be rejected due to design or scope
issues.
If a feature is based on a lot of dependencies, contributors should
first
consider building the system outside of Dash Core, if possible.
-->
## Issue being fixed or feature implemented
<!--- Why is this change required? What problem does it solve? -->
<!--- If it fixes an open issue, please link to the issue here. -->
globals should be avoided to avoid annoying lifetime / nullptr /
initialization issues
## What was done?
<!--- Describe your changes in detail -->
removed a global, g_evoDB
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!--- Please describe in detail how you tested your changes. -->
<!--- Include details of your testing environment, and the tests you ran
to -->
<!--- see how your change affects other areas of the code, etc. -->
make check
## Breaking Changes
<!--- Please describe any breaking changes your code introduces -->
none
## Checklist:
<!--- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [x] I have performed a self-review of my own code
- [x] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
- [ ] I have added or updated relevant unit/integration/functional/e2e
tests
- [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
**For repository code-owners and collaborators only**
- [ ] I have assigned this pull request to a milestone
Co-authored-by: UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Kittywhiskers Van Gogh <63189531+kittywhiskers@users.noreply.github.com>
* fix: move chain activation logic downward to succeed LLMQ initialization
* fix: change order of initialization to reflect dependency
* llmq: pass all global pointers invoked as CDSNotificationInterface arguments
* llmq: pass reference to quorumDKGDebugManager instead of invoking global
* llmq: pass reference to quorumBlockProcessor instead of invoking global
* llmq: pass reference to quorumDKGSessionManager instead of invoking global
* llmq: pass reference to quorumManager instead of invoking global
Co-authored-by: "UdjinM6 <UdjinM6@users.noreply.github.com>"
* llmq: pass reference to quorumSigSharesManager within CSigningManager and networking
* llmq: pass reference to quorumSigSharesManager instead of invoking global
* llmq: pass reference to chainLocksHandler instead of querying global
* llmq: pass reference to quorumInstantSendManager instead of querying global
* trivial: accept argument as const where possible
* style: remove an unneeded const_cast and instead pass by const reference
* style: use const where possible
Co-authored-by: pasta <pasta@dashboost.org>
98fbd1cdffaa69357091cc67e959ac21119dfa16 Use correct C++11 header for std::swap() (Hennadii Stepanov)
b66861e2e5e8a49e11e7489cf22c3007bc7082cc Fix comparison function signature (Hennadii Stepanov)
Pull request description:
This PR fixes build on CentOS 7 with GCC 4.8.5:
```
...
In file included from /usr/include/c++/4.8.2/algorithm:62:0,
from ./serialize.h:11,
from ./qt/sendcoinsrecipient.h:13,
from ./qt/recentrequeststablemodel.h:8,
from qt/recentrequeststablemodel.cpp:5:
/usr/include/c++/4.8.2/bits/stl_algo.h: In instantiation of ‘_RandomAccessIterator std::__unguarded_partition(_RandomAccessIterator, _RandomAccessIterator, const _Tp&, _Compare) [with _RandomAccessIterator = QList<RecentRequestEntry>::iterator; _Tp = RecentRequestEntry; _Compare = RecentRequestEntryLessThan]’:
/usr/include/c++/4.8.2/bits/stl_algo.h:2296:78: required from ‘_RandomAccessIterator std::__unguarded_partition_pivot(_RandomAccessIterator, _RandomAccessIterator, _Compare) [with _RandomAccessIterator = QList<RecentRequestEntry>::iterator; _Compare = RecentRequestEntryLessThan]’
/usr/include/c++/4.8.2/bits/stl_algo.h:2337:62: required from ‘void std::__introsort_loop(_RandomAccessIterator, _RandomAccessIterator, _Size, _Compare) [with _RandomAccessIterator = QList<RecentRequestEntry>::iterator; _Size = int; _Compare = RecentRequestEntryLessThan]’
/usr/include/c++/4.8.2/bits/stl_algo.h:5499:44: required from ‘void std::sort(_RAIter, _RAIter, _Compare) [with _RAIter = QList<RecentRequestEntry>::iterator; _Compare = RecentRequestEntryLessThan]’
qt/recentrequeststablemodel.cpp:208:82: required from here
/usr/include/c++/4.8.2/bits/stl_algo.h:2263:35: error: no match for call to ‘(RecentRequestEntryLessThan) (RecentRequestEntry&, const RecentRequestEntry&)’
while (__comp(*__first, __pivot))
^
In file included from qt/recentrequeststablemodel.cpp:5:0:
./qt/recentrequeststablemodel.h:43:7: note: candidate is:
class RecentRequestEntryLessThan
^
qt/recentrequeststablemodel.cpp:217:6: note: bool RecentRequestEntryLessThan::operator()(RecentRequestEntry&, RecentRequestEntry&) const
bool RecentRequestEntryLessThan::operator()(RecentRequestEntry &left, RecentRequestEntry &right) const
^
qt/recentrequeststablemodel.cpp:217:6: note: no known conversion for argument 2 from ‘const RecentRequestEntry’ to ‘RecentRequestEntry&’
In file included from /usr/include/c++/4.8.2/algorithm:62:0,
from ./serialize.h:11,
from ./qt/sendcoinsrecipient.h:13,
from ./qt/recentrequeststablemodel.h:8,
from qt/recentrequeststablemodel.cpp:5:
/usr/include/c++/4.8.2/bits/stl_algo.h:2266:34: error: no match for call to ‘(RecentRequestEntryLessThan) (const RecentRequestEntry&, RecentRequestEntry&)’
while (__comp(__pivot, *__last))
^
In file included from qt/recentrequeststablemodel.cpp:5:0:
./qt/recentrequeststablemodel.h:43:7: note: candidate is:
class RecentRequestEntryLessThan
^
qt/recentrequeststablemodel.cpp:217:6: note: bool RecentRequestEntryLessThan::operator()(RecentRequestEntry&, RecentRequestEntry&) const
bool RecentRequestEntryLessThan::operator()(RecentRequestEntry &left, RecentRequestEntry &right) const
^
qt/recentrequeststablemodel.cpp:217:6: note: no known conversion for argument 1 from ‘const RecentRequestEntry’ to ‘RecentRequestEntry&’
CXX qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-sendcoinsentry.o
make[2]: *** [qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-recentrequeststablemodel.o] Error 1
```
Also for `std::swap()` header `<algorithm>` is replaced with `<utility>` one.
Refs:
- [`std::swap()`](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/algorithm/swap)
- [standard library header `<utility>`](https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/header/utility)
ACKs for top commit:
promag:
Code review ACK 98fbd1cdffaa69357091cc67e959ac21119dfa16.
jonasschnelli:
utACK 98fbd1cdffaa69357091cc67e959ac21119dfa16
fanquake:
ACK 98fbd1cdffaa69357091cc67e959ac21119dfa16
Tree-SHA512: 91324490c1bdb98f186d233418e7e72ae7bee507876e94fb8c038bee031cea9e1046900f21156da4b7c33abcd726796867b124c4132d9ae3759877e90a8527db
