Fix devel/qt4-linguist build against clang 4.0

[adridg]

Summary

Fix for https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=216051 ,
build failure for qt4-linguist with clang 4.0. Blocker for the clang 4.0
import project.

Test Plan

Will be picked up by the exp-run for clang 4.0.

[tcberner]

devel/qt4-linguist/files/patch-tools__linguist__linguist__messagemodel.cpp

11 ↗

(On Diff #24006)

couldn't you simply use

if (c->findMessage(m->text(), m->comment()))

[adridg]

devel/qt4-linguist/files/patch-tools__linguist__linguist__messagemodel.cpp

11 ↗

(On Diff #24006)

While I could do that, and it would be idiomatic C, the Qt sources tend to use != 0 explicitly, so this patch sticks closer to the style of the source. (But it's just "tend", since you can see from tools/designer/src/components/objectinspector/objectinspector.cpp lines 286 and 307 that sometimes they use !p, sometimes p != 0)

[tcberner]

devel/qt4-linguist/files/patch-tools__linguist__linguist__messagemodel.cpp

11 ↗

(On Diff #24006)

Ah, that makes sense.

[jbeich]

With the change poudriere builds for 10.3 i386 and /projects/clang400-import@311940 amd64 are green. Thanks.

devel/qt4-linguist/files/patch-tools__linguist__linguist__messagemodel.cpp

5 ↗

(On Diff #24006)

Can you format the patch with make makepatch? It uses timestamps in UTC and single underscore for directory separator in filename.

[jbeich]

devel/qt4-linguist/files/patch-tools__linguist__linguist__messagemodel.cpp

11 ↗

(On Diff #24006)

Before the change the conditional always took true branch but now it sometimes doesn't. Maybe bump PORTREVISION.

[rakuco]

I think it's also a good idea to call this a backport of this Qt5 commit. No objections to bumping PORTREVISION.

[jbeich]

In D9184#189893, @rakuco wrote:

call this a backport of this Qt5 commit.

Hmm, I'd prefer we take that commit as is then.

[adridg]

• Made makepatch (this renames an unrelated patch as well)
• Used upstream commit
• Bumped PORTREVISION

[tcberner]

Could you add the commit message/some explanation to the top of the new patch? So we know why it is there :)

Apart from that it should be good to go.

[adridg]

Add patch-comment