Change Details

``` When re-reading all of the mempool code in master I noticed that in 2 places, a working `setEntries` (which is an alias for a `std::set<CTxMemPool::txiter>`) was being erased-from inefficiently. In these two places we are grabbing the first `txiter` from the set then we are erasing it. In the extant code, the `txiter` is being passed as a *key* to the set. Instead, we should be erasing using the slightly more efficient `std::set(std::set::iterator)` overload, which does not need to do any O(log N) lookups. ``` Port of bchn#1175. Depends on D13171. There is no change in behavior.

``` When re-reading all of the mempool code in master I noticed that in 2 places, a working `setEntries` (which is an alias for a `std::set<CTxMemPool::txiter>`) was being erased-from inefficiently. In these two places we are grabbing the first `txiter` from the set then we are erasing it. In the extant code, the `txiter` is being passed as a *key* to the set. Instead, we should be erasing using the slightly more efficient `std::set(std::set::iterator)` overload, which does not need to do any O(log N) lookups. ``` Port of [[https://gitlab.com/bitcoin-cash-node/bitcoin-cash-node/merge_requests/1175 | bchn#1175]]. Depends on D13171. There is no change in behavior.

``` When re-reading all of the mempool code in master I noticed that in 2 places, a working `setEntries` (which is an alias for a `std::set<CTxMemPool::txiter>`) was being erased-from inefficiently. In these two places we are grabbing the first `txiter` from the set then we are erasing it. In the extant code, the `txiter` is being passed as a *key* to the set. Instead, we should be erasing using the slightly more efficient `std::set(std::set::iterator)` overload, which does not need to do any O(log N) lookups. ``` Port of [[https://gitlab.com/bitcoin-cash-node/bitcoin-cash-node/merge_requests/1175 | bchn#1175]]. Depends on D13171. There is no change in behavior.