bench: Remove -priority-level= option #34210

1. 
   maflcko commented at 4:43 pm on January 6, 2026: member

   The option was added in #26158, when the project was using an autotools-based build system. However, in the meantime this option is unused:

   • First, commit 27f11217ca63e0f8f78f14db139150052dcd9962 removed the option from one CI task

   • Then #32310 removed the option from CMakeList.txt, because:

     • they only run as a sanity check (fastest version)
     • no one otherwise runs them, not even CI
     • issues have been missed due to this

   Finally, after commit 0ad4376a49fae6f705128b326ba92317cb8e0639, I don’t see a single reason to keep this option, so remove it.

   Also, there is a commit to turn a silent ignore of duplicate bench names into an error.

2. DrahtBot renamed this:
   bench: Remove -priority-level= option
   bench: Remove -priority-level= option
   on Jan 6, 2026
3. DrahtBot added the label Tests on Jan 6, 2026
4. 
   DrahtBot commented at 4:43 pm on January 6, 2026: contributor

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

   Code Coverage & Benchmarks

   For details see: https://corecheck.dev/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls/34210.

   Reviews

   See the guideline for information on the review process.

   Type	Reviewers
   ACK	bensig
   Concept ACK	hebasto

   If your review is incorrectly listed, please copy-paste <!–meta-tag:bot-skip–> into the comment that the bot should ignore.

   Conflicts

   Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

   • #34208 (bench: add fluent API for untimed setup steps in nanobench by l0rinc)
   • #33740 (RFC: bench: Add multi thread benchmarking by fjahr)
   • #32729 (test,refactor: extract script template helpers & widen sigop count coverage by l0rinc)
   • #31682 ([IBD] specialize CheckBlock’s input & coinbase checks by l0rinc)

   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.

5. 
   hebasto commented at 4:53 pm on January 6, 2026: member

   Concept ACK.
6. bench: Remove -priority-level= option faf3699d70
7. scripted-diff: Remove priority_level from BENCHMARK macro

   -BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT-
   
    sed --in-place --regexp-extended 's/BENCHMARK\(([^,]+), benchmark::PriorityLevel::(HIGH|LOW)\)/BENCHMARK(\1)/g' $( git grep -l PriorityLevel )
    sed --in-place                   's/#define BENCHMARK(n, priority_level)/#define BENCHMARK(n)/g'                ./src/bench/bench.h
   
   -END VERIFY SCRIPT-

   fad09dddfc
8. bench: Remove incorrect __LINE__ in BENCHMARK macro

   Duplicate benchmarks with the same name are not supported. Expanding the
   name with __LINE__ is confusing and brittle, because it makes dupliction
   bugs silent.
   
   Fix this twofold:
   
   * By enforcing unique benchmarks at compile-time and link-time. For
     example, a link failure may now look like:
     "mold: error: duplicate symbol: bench_runner_AddrManAdd"
   * By enforcing unique benchmarks at run-time. This should never happen,
     due to the build-failure, but a failure may look like:
     "Assertion `benchmarks().try_emplace(std::move(name), std::move(func)).second' failed."

   faa2eaba73
9. maflcko force-pushed on Jan 6, 2026
10. DrahtBot added the label CI failed on Jan 6, 2026
11. 
    DrahtBot commented at 5:07 pm on January 6, 2026: contributor

    🚧 At least one of the CI tasks failed. Task tidy: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/actions/runs/20755188728/job/59595176823 LLM reason (✨ experimental): clang-tidy failed due to unused using declarations (e.g., Join/SplitString).

    Try to run the tests locally, according to the documentation. However, a CI failure may still happen due to a number of reasons, for example:

    • Possibly due to a silent merge conflict (the changes in this pull request being incompatible with the current code in the target branch). If so, make sure to rebase on the latest commit of the target branch.

    • A sanitizer issue, which can only be found by compiling with the sanitizer and running the affected test.

    • An intermittent issue.

    Leave a comment here, if you need help tracking down a confusing failure.

12. DrahtBot removed the label CI failed on Jan 6, 2026
13. 
    bensig commented at 9:35 pm on January 7, 2026: contributor

    ACK faa2eaba730831f9cf084f10590b6290f67842c3

    Tested:

    • -priority-level option removed from help
    • Benchmarks list and run correctly
    • Sanity check passes
14. DrahtBot requested review from hebasto on Jan 7, 2026

Contributors
maflcko DrahtBot hebasto bensig

Review Requested
hebasto

Labels
Tests