refactor: Remove unused includes #16273

practicalswift · 2019-06-23T20:46:18Z

Reduce compile-time memory usage by 2%, compilation time by 2% and avoid unnecessary recompiles by removing unused includes.

The total accumulated max RSS usage is reduced by 2% (roughly -3564 MB, low variance measurement).

The total compilation time is reduced by 2% (roughly -73 seconds in user CPU time, slightly higher variance measurement).

Commits:

Reduce memory usage during build by not including unused C++ standard library headers
Reduce memory usage during build by not including unused C compatibility headers
Reduce memory usage during build by not including unused headers (project local headers and headers for external dependencies)
Minimise includes and simplify header analysis/reasoning by splitting the core_io.h into the expected core_read.h/core_write.h (matching core_read.cpp/core_write.cpp)

The two first commits account for half of the speedup and the third commit account for the other half.

This PR is a follow-up to the merged PR #16129 which reduced max RSS and compilation time by 2%.

Comparing max memory usage (RSS) between old revision 2cbcc55 (branch master) and new revision fd2f303 (branch cut-compilation-bloat):

File	Old	New	Diff	Percent
`bench/bench_bench_bitcoin-bench_bitcoin.o`	235 MB	218 MB	-18 MB	-7 %
`bench/bench_bench_bitcoin-verify_script.o`	218 MB	178 MB	-39 MB	-18 %
`libbitcoin_common_a-netbase.o`	281 MB	263 MB	-17 MB	-6 %
`libbitcoin_common_a-protocol.o`	236 MB	218 MB	-18 MB	-8 %
`libbitcoin_common_a-warnings.o`	212 MB	194 MB	-17 MB	-8 %
`libbitcoin_server_a-addrman.o`	286 MB	269 MB	-17 MB	-6 %
`libbitcoin_server_a-banman.o`	253 MB	235 MB	-17 MB	-7 %
`libbitcoin_server_a-dbwrapper.o`	287 MB	270 MB	-17 MB	-6 %
`libbitcoin_server_a-flatfile.o`	239 MB	221 MB	-18 MB	-7 %
`libbitcoin_server_a-httprpc.o`	398 MB	363 MB	-35 MB	-9 %
`libbitcoin_server_a-timedata.o`	257 MB	239 MB	-18 MB	-7 %
`libbitcoin_server_a-torcontrol.o`	604 MB	504 MB	-99 MB	-16 %
`libbitcoin_util_a-chainparamsbase.o`	225 MB	208 MB	-17 MB	-8 %
`qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-bitcoin.o`	595 MB	498 MB	-97 MB	-16 %
`qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_bantablemodel.o`	304 MB	199 MB	-105 MB	-35 %
`qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-receivecoinsdialog.o`	585 MB	471 MB	-114 MB	-19 %
`qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-sendcoinsdialog.o`	809 MB	706 MB	-103 MB	-13 %
`qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-signverifymessagedialog.o`	620 MB	400 MB	-220 MB	-36 %
`qt/test/qt_test_test_bitcoin_qt-moc_rpcnestedtests.o`	438 MB	145 MB	-293 MB	-67 %
`qt/test/qt_test_test_bitcoin_qt-test_main.o`	539 MB	438 MB	-102 MB	-19 %
`rpc/libbitcoin_cli_a-client.o`	263 MB	246 MB	-17 MB	-6 %
`rpc/libbitcoin_common_a-rawtransaction_util.o`	423 MB	395 MB	-28 MB	-7 %
`rpc/libbitcoin_common_a-util.o`	408 MB	384 MB	-23 MB	-6 %
`rpc/libbitcoin_util_a-protocol.o`	258 MB	241 MB	-17 MB	-7 %
`test/bench_bench_bitcoin-util.o`	613 MB	518 MB	-95 MB	-15 %
`test/test_test_bitcoin-bech32_tests.o`	541 MB	513 MB	-28 MB	-5 %
`test/test_test_bitcoin-fs_tests.o`	540 MB	513 MB	-27 MB	-5 %
`test/test_test_bitcoin-reverselock_tests.o`	549 MB	520 MB	-29 MB	-5 %
`util/libbitcoin_util_a-error.o`	220 MB	202 MB	-18 MB	-8 %
`util/libbitcoin_util_a-moneystr.o`	108 MB	81 MB	-27 MB	-25 %
`util/libbitcoin_util_a-threadnames.o`	69 MB	48 MB	-21 MB	-31 %
`wallet/libbitcoin_wallet_a-walletutil.o`	249 MB	232 MB	-17 MB	-7 %
`zmq/libbitcoin_zmq_a-zmqrpc.o`	347 MB	326 MB	-21 MB	-6 %
... suppressing 421 unchanged measurements ...	...	...	...	...
Average (N=454)	321 MB	313 MB	-8 MB	-2 %
Sum (N=454)	145549 MB	141986 MB	-3564 MB	-2 %

Comparing build time (user CPU time) between old revision 2cbcc55 (branch master) and new revision fd2f303 (branch cut-compilation-bloat), listing filenames and individual results only for files with a measured change in max memory usage (RSS) to reduce noise:

File	Old	New	Diff	Percent
`bench/bench_bench_bitcoin-bench_bitcoin.o`	3 s.	3 s.	-0 s.	-5 %
`bench/bench_bench_bitcoin-verify_script.o`	4 s.	3 s.	-1 s.	-15 %
`libbitcoin_common_a-netbase.o`	6 s.	6 s.	-0 s.	-1 %
`libbitcoin_common_a-protocol.o`	4 s.	4 s.	-0 s.	-7 %
`libbitcoin_common_a-warnings.o`	3 s.	3 s.	-0 s.	-9 %
`libbitcoin_server_a-addrman.o`	5 s.	5 s.	-0 s.	-3 %
`libbitcoin_server_a-banman.o`	4 s.	4 s.	-0 s.	-0 %
`libbitcoin_server_a-dbwrapper.o`	6 s.	6 s.	-0 s.	-1 %
`libbitcoin_server_a-flatfile.o`	4 s.	4 s.	-0 s.	-1 %
`libbitcoin_server_a-httprpc.o`	9 s.	8 s.	-1 s.	-8 %
`libbitcoin_server_a-timedata.o`	4 s.	4 s.	-0 s.	-2 %
`libbitcoin_server_a-torcontrol.o`	15 s.	12 s.	-2 s.	-17 %
`libbitcoin_util_a-chainparamsbase.o`	3 s.	3 s.	-0 s.	-6 %
`qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-bitcoin.o`	13 s.	10 s.	-3 s.	-25 %
`qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-moc_bantablemodel.o`	4 s.	2 s.	-1 s.	-36 %
`qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-receivecoinsdialog.o`	11 s.	8 s.	-3 s.	-31 %
`qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-sendcoinsdialog.o`	16 s.	14 s.	-1 s.	-7 %
`qt/qt_libbitcoinqt_a-signverifymessagedialog.o`	12 s.	8 s.	-4 s.	-36 %
`qt/test/qt_test_test_bitcoin_qt-moc_rpcnestedtests.o`	6 s.	2 s.	-5 s.	-72 %
`qt/test/qt_test_test_bitcoin_qt-test_main.o`	10 s.	7 s.	-3 s.	-28 %
`rpc/libbitcoin_cli_a-client.o`	4 s.	4 s.	-0 s.	-3 %
`rpc/libbitcoin_common_a-rawtransaction_util.o`	9 s.	9 s.	-0 s.	-3 %
`rpc/libbitcoin_common_a-util.o`	9 s.	8 s.	-0 s.	-2 %
`rpc/libbitcoin_util_a-protocol.o`	5 s.	5 s.	-0 s.	-1 %
`test/bench_bench_bitcoin-util.o`	13 s.	9 s.	-4 s.	-31 %
`test/test_test_bitcoin-bech32_tests.o`	11 s.	11 s.	-1 s.	-5 %
`test/test_test_bitcoin-fs_tests.o`	11 s.	11 s.	-1 s.	-5 %
`test/test_test_bitcoin-reverselock_tests.o`	12 s.	11 s.	-1 s.	-6 %
`util/libbitcoin_util_a-error.o`	3 s.	3 s.	-0 s.	-4 %
`util/libbitcoin_util_a-moneystr.o`	2 s.	1 s.	-0 s.	-24 %
`util/libbitcoin_util_a-threadnames.o`	1 s.	0 s.	-0 s.	-35 %
`wallet/libbitcoin_wallet_a-walletutil.o`	4 s.	4 s.	-0 s.	-4 %
`zmq/libbitcoin_zmq_a-zmqrpc.o`	6 s.	5 s.	-1 s.	-9 %
... suppressing 421 measurements ...	...	...	...	...
Average (N=454)	7 s.	6 s.	-0 s.	-2 %
Sum (N=454)	2994 s.	2921 s.	-73 s.	-2 %

DrahtBot · 2019-06-23T22:18:50Z

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

#16440 (BIP-322: Generic signed message format by kallewoof)
#16341 (Introduce ScriptPubKeyMan interface and use it for key and script management (aka wallet boxes) by achow101)
#16324 (Get cs_main out of the critical path in ProcessMessages by TheBlueMatt)
#16323 (Call ProcessNewBlock() asynchronously by TheBlueMatt)
#16248 (Make whitebind/whitelist permissions more flexible by NicolasDorier)
#16224 (gui: Bilingual GUI error messages by hebasto)
#15934 (Separate settings merging from parsing by ryanofsky)
#15382 ([util] add runCommandParseJSON by Sjors)
#15294 ([moveonly] wallet: Extract RipeMd160 by Empact)
#14046 (net: Refactor message parsing (CNetMessage), adds flexibility by jonasschnelli)
#13789 (crypto/sha256: Use pragmas to enforce necessary intrinsics for GCC and Clang by luke-jr)
#13686 (ZMQ: Small cleanups in the ZMQ code by domob1812)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

hebasto · 2019-06-24T10:43:16Z

Just wondering what is a proper way to test such PRs?

maflcko · 2019-06-24T13:59:59Z

Could create a separate pull for all changes in src/bench/ src/test src/wallet/test/?

practicalswift · 2019-06-24T15:35:38Z

@MarcoFalke Good idea! Submitted as #16278 :-)

Sjors · 2019-06-27T13:08:10Z

Good idea to move the tests to #16027. The commit splitting core_io.h into the ex… …pected core_read.h/core_write.h could also be a separate PR if this ends up taking longer.

This touches quite a few other PRs, but I suspect most won't trigger a rebase. Otherwise it would be best to merge this right after a major release (@MarcoFalke would be cool if @DrahtBot could tell). So concept ACK.

Suggest moving "Reduce memory usage during build by" from the commit name(s) to the commit message(s); emphasize what you're changing in the title, and why in the message.

I was able to run unit and functional* tests on macOS with 67fc141 (rebased on on master).

except p2p_invalid_messages.py as usual

9a84169 tests: Reduce compilation time and unneccessary recompiles by removing unused includes in tests (practicalswift) Pull request description: Reduce compilation time and unneccessary recompiles by removing unused includes in tests. A subset of bitcoin#16273 ("refactor: Reduce total compilation time by 2% and avoid unnecessary recompiles by removing unused includes") as requested by MarcoFalke in bitcoin#16273 (comment). ACKs for top commit: Sjors: ACK 9a84169 on macOS 10.14.5 (I rebased on bitcoin#16289) Tree-SHA512: bcb6ecffef689a9839bee1a5cb93abe83db1f30819a54226c5630fee456b5a5d187507d06861454adfda939c3556a975113f97662e415cb47fa0327ea4fd09fb

maflcko · 2019-06-27T15:42:11Z

src/Makefile.am

  core_memusage.h \
+  core_read.h \
+  core_write.h \


Why don't you keep the header and make this core_io.cpp?

That is an option but it would introduce 18 (9 * 2) additional unused includes. Is it worth that cost?

Reasoning:

core_write.h includes string, amount.h and stdint.h (via amount.h).

core_read.h includes string, vector and attributes.h.

The following files include only one of core_read.h and core_write.h:

$ git grep -E '^#include <(core_read|core_write)\.h>' -- "*.cpp" "*.h" | \ cut -f1 -d: | uniq -c | grep ' 1 ' 1 src/core_read.cpp 1 src/core_write.cpp 1 src/qt/transactiontablemodel.cpp 1 src/rpc/blockchain.cpp 1 src/rpc/net.cpp 1 src/test/blockfilter_tests.cpp 1 src/test/rpc_tests.cpp 1 src/test/transaction_tests.cpp 1 src/wallet/rpcdump.cpp

These seem like 18 very small includes. I'm fine with either splitting in read/write or having one io.

Agree that they are not worth the effort, also you can avoid them by putting using CAmount=... instead of the full header.

I don't feel strongly about this. I'll let others chime in and update according to the consensus opinion.

@MarcoFalke I take it I have your Concept ACK? Mind making it explicit in a standalone comment?

practicalswift · 2019-06-27T16:05:09Z

@Sjors Thanks for taking the time to review and test!

Good point about the commit messages! I've now changed that. I guess I was eager to explain the why to also reach those who form their judgement based on PR metadata alone: the GitHub equivalent of having an opinion about the content of a news article after only reading the title :-)

practicalswift · 2019-07-02T10:11:44Z

Just wondering what is a proper way to test such PRs?

Making sure we compile and pass the test suite (both functional and unit tests) on supported platforms would be the obvious starting point for testing I guess? :-)

practicalswift · 2019-07-03T21:30:14Z

Rebased! :-)

practicalswift · 2019-07-10T15:53:14Z

Rebased! :-)

practicalswift · 2019-07-21T20:56:37Z

Rebased! :-)

…external dependencies)

…core_read.cpp/core_write.cpp)

maflcko · 2019-08-14T17:03:38Z

@practicalswift While this is probably nothing to be merged as-is, I still liked having the pull request open. You might have noticed that I fixed the includes in files that I touched based on the diff in this pull. Would you mind re-opening and/or sharing the steps you took to generate this list?

I tried to run iwyu once, but I wasn't really successful. So if your solution works better, why not put a comment in #15442?

084e17c Remove unused includes (practicalswift) Pull request description: As requested by MarcoFalke in #16273 (comment): This PR removes unused includes. Please note that in contrast to #16273 I'm limiting the scope to the trivial cases of pure removals (i.e. no includes added) to make reviewing easier. I'm seeking "Concept ACK":s for this obviously non-urgent minor cleanup. Rationale: * Avoids unnecessary re-compiles in case of header changes. * Makes reasoning about code dependencies easier. * Reduces compile-time memory usage. * Reduces compilation time. * Warm fuzzy feeling of being lean :-) ACKs for top commit: ryanofsky: Code review ACK 084e17c. PR only removes include lines and it still compiles. In the worst case someone might have to explicitly add an include later for something now included implicitly. But maybe some effort was taken to avoid this, and it wouldn't be a tragedy anyway. Tree-SHA512: 89de56edc6ceea4696e9579bccff10c80080821685b9fb4e8c5ef593b6e43cf662f358788701bb09f84867693f66b2e4db035b92b522a0a775f50b7ecffd6a6d

084e17c Remove unused includes (practicalswift) Pull request description: As requested by MarcoFalke in bitcoin#16273 (comment): This PR removes unused includes. Please note that in contrast to bitcoin#16273 I'm limiting the scope to the trivial cases of pure removals (i.e. no includes added) to make reviewing easier. I'm seeking "Concept ACK":s for this obviously non-urgent minor cleanup. Rationale: * Avoids unnecessary re-compiles in case of header changes. * Makes reasoning about code dependencies easier. * Reduces compile-time memory usage. * Reduces compilation time. * Warm fuzzy feeling of being lean :-) ACKs for top commit: ryanofsky: Code review ACK 084e17c. PR only removes include lines and it still compiles. In the worst case someone might have to explicitly add an include later for something now included implicitly. But maybe some effort was taken to avoid this, and it wouldn't be a tragedy anyway. Tree-SHA512: 89de56edc6ceea4696e9579bccff10c80080821685b9fb4e8c5ef593b6e43cf662f358788701bb09f84867693f66b2e4db035b92b522a0a775f50b7ecffd6a6d

Summary: 084e17cebd424b8e8ced674bc810eef4e6ee5d3b Remove unused includes (practicalswift) Pull request description: As requested by MarcoFalke in bitcoin/bitcoin#16273 (comment): This PR removes unused includes. Please note that in contrast to #16273 I'm limiting the scope to the trivial cases of pure removals (i.e. no includes added) to make reviewing easier. I'm seeking "Concept ACK":s for this obviously non-urgent minor cleanup. Rationale: * Avoids unnecessary re-compiles in case of header changes. * Makes reasoning about code dependencies easier. * Reduces compile-time memory usage. * Reduces compilation time. * Warm fuzzy feeling of being lean :-) ACKs for top commit: ryanofsky: Code review ACK 084e17cebd424b8e8ced674bc810eef4e6ee5d3b. PR only removes include lines and it still compiles. In the worst case someone might have to explicitly add an include later for something now included implicitly. But maybe some effort was taken to avoid this, and it wouldn't be a tragedy anyway. --- Backport of Core [[bitcoin/bitcoin#16659 | PR16659]] Test Plan: ninja check-all ninja Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, deadalnix Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, deadalnix Subscribers: deadalnix Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D6586

9a84169 tests: Reduce compilation time and unneccessary recompiles by removing unused includes in tests (practicalswift) Pull request description: Reduce compilation time and unneccessary recompiles by removing unused includes in tests. A subset of bitcoin#16273 ("refactor: Reduce total compilation time by 2% and avoid unnecessary recompiles by removing unused includes") as requested by MarcoFalke in bitcoin#16273 (comment). ACKs for top commit: Sjors: ACK 9a84169 on macOS 10.14.5 (I rebased on bitcoin#16289) Tree-SHA512: bcb6ecffef689a9839bee1a5cb93abe83db1f30819a54226c5630fee456b5a5d187507d06861454adfda939c3556a975113f97662e415cb47fa0327ea4fd09fb

9a84169 tests: Reduce compilation time and unneccessary recompiles by removing unused includes in tests (practicalswift) Pull request description: Reduce compilation time and unneccessary recompiles by removing unused includes in tests. A subset of bitcoin#16273 ("refactor: Reduce total compilation time by 2% and avoid unnecessary recompiles by removing unused includes") as requested by MarcoFalke in bitcoin#16273 (comment). ACKs for top commit: Sjors: ACK 9a84169 on macOS 10.14.5 (I rebased on bitcoin#16289) Tree-SHA512: bcb6ecffef689a9839bee1a5cb93abe83db1f30819a54226c5630fee456b5a5d187507d06861454adfda939c3556a975113f97662e415cb47fa0327ea4fd09fb Co-authored-by: MarcoFalke <falke.marco@gmail.com>

084e17c Remove unused includes (practicalswift) Pull request description: As requested by MarcoFalke in bitcoin#16273 (comment): This PR removes unused includes. Please note that in contrast to bitcoin#16273 I'm limiting the scope to the trivial cases of pure removals (i.e. no includes added) to make reviewing easier. I'm seeking "Concept ACK":s for this obviously non-urgent minor cleanup. Rationale: * Avoids unnecessary re-compiles in case of header changes. * Makes reasoning about code dependencies easier. * Reduces compile-time memory usage. * Reduces compilation time. * Warm fuzzy feeling of being lean :-) ACKs for top commit: ryanofsky: Code review ACK 084e17c. PR only removes include lines and it still compiles. In the worst case someone might have to explicitly add an include later for something now included implicitly. But maybe some effort was taken to avoid this, and it wouldn't be a tragedy anyway. Tree-SHA512: 89de56edc6ceea4696e9579bccff10c80080821685b9fb4e8c5ef593b6e43cf662f358788701bb09f84867693f66b2e4db035b92b522a0a775f50b7ecffd6a6d

fanquake added the Refactoring label Jun 23, 2019

practicalswift mentioned this pull request Jun 24, 2019

tests: Remove unused includes #16278

Merged

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label Jun 25, 2019

practicalswift force-pushed the cut-compilation-bloat branch from fd2f303 to b09ec5e Compare June 25, 2019 11:22

fanquake removed the Needs rebase label Jun 25, 2019

practicalswift force-pushed the cut-compilation-bloat branch 2 times, most recently from 37f3047 to 67fc141 Compare June 25, 2019 12:45

practicalswift changed the title ~~refactor: Reduce total compilation time by 2% and avoid unnecessary recompiles by removing unused includes~~ refactor: Reduce compile-time memory usage by 2 %, compilation time by 2% and avoid unnecessary recompiles by removing unused includes Jun 27, 2019

practicalswift mentioned this pull request Jun 27, 2019

Building requires >1GB memory #6658

Closed

practicalswift force-pushed the cut-compilation-bloat branch 2 times, most recently from 45911a0 to 50730e6 Compare June 27, 2019 15:24

maflcko changed the title ~~refactor: Reduce compile-time memory usage by 2%, compilation time by 2% and avoid unnecessary recompiles by removing unused includes~~ refactor: Remove unused includes Jun 27, 2019

maflcko reviewed Jun 27, 2019

View reviewed changes

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label Jun 28, 2019

practicalswift force-pushed the cut-compilation-bloat branch 2 times, most recently from 3d31f1c to 9c9d6a3 Compare June 28, 2019 13:43

DrahtBot removed the Needs rebase label Jun 28, 2019

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label Jul 3, 2019

practicalswift force-pushed the cut-compilation-bloat branch 2 times, most recently from 5e50bce to b772d35 Compare July 3, 2019 21:28

DrahtBot removed the Needs rebase label Jul 10, 2019

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label Jul 12, 2019

practicalswift force-pushed the cut-compilation-bloat branch 2 times, most recently from 5aa2fdb to 66f338e Compare July 20, 2019 11:30

DrahtBot removed the Needs rebase label Jul 20, 2019

DrahtBot added the Needs rebase label Jul 24, 2019

practicalswift added 2 commits July 31, 2019 07:48

build: Remove unused C++ standard library includes

8bda325

build: Remove unused C compatibility includes

2b20410

practicalswift force-pushed the cut-compilation-bloat branch from 66f338e to 87886ff Compare July 31, 2019 07:50

DrahtBot removed the Needs rebase label Jul 31, 2019

practicalswift added 2 commits July 31, 2019 17:12

build: Remove unused includes (project local headers and headers for …

1f97bc9

…external dependencies)

Split core_io.h into the expected core_read.h/core_write.h (matching …

523e40e

…core_read.cpp/core_write.cpp)

practicalswift force-pushed the cut-compilation-bloat branch from 87886ff to 523e40e Compare July 31, 2019 17:14

practicalswift closed this Aug 14, 2019

practicalswift mentioned this pull request Aug 19, 2019

refactoring: Remove unused includes #16659

Merged

practicalswift deleted the cut-compilation-bloat branch April 10, 2021 19:38

bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 18, 2022

refactor: Remove unused includes #16273

refactor: Remove unused includes #16273

Uh oh!

Conversation

practicalswift commented Jun 23, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

DrahtBot commented Jun 23, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Conflicts

Uh oh!

hebasto commented Jun 24, 2019

Uh oh!

maflcko commented Jun 24, 2019

Uh oh!

practicalswift commented Jun 24, 2019

Uh oh!

Sjors commented Jun 27, 2019

Uh oh!

maflcko Jun 27, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

practicalswift Jun 27, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Sjors Jun 27, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

maflcko Jun 27, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

practicalswift Jun 27, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

practicalswift commented Jun 27, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

practicalswift commented Jul 2, 2019 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

practicalswift commented Jul 3, 2019

Uh oh!

practicalswift commented Jul 10, 2019

Uh oh!

practicalswift commented Jul 21, 2019

Uh oh!

maflcko commented Aug 14, 2019

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

practicalswift commented Jun 23, 2019 •

edited

Loading

DrahtBot commented Jun 23, 2019 •

edited

Loading

practicalswift Jun 27, 2019 •

edited

Loading

practicalswift commented Jun 27, 2019 •

edited

Loading

practicalswift commented Jul 2, 2019 •

edited

Loading