What about leaving the form itself alone, but adding a comment at the top of the XML file?

Add LICENSE_FILE.

Don't forget to remove PORTREVISION.

One suggestion, though: instead of calling this NOTE_MONOTONIC, would it make sense to use NOTE_ABSTIME instead?

Thanks for working on this! The CloudABI polling code can also make good use of this. I'll prepare a change to adjust that once this code lands.

Would it make sense to let this new library be responsible for installing the experimental/ headers as well?

Hi Kostik,

Looks good to me. Still, could you add a comment to the code explaining the situation?

On the lines you're changing, there are also some whitespace missing around binary operators. That said, this is already a step in the right direction. :-)

Hi Rene,

Remove PORTREVISION.

Hmmm... In this case it wouldn't be a lot more effort to just use realloc() and free(). That said, this tool is specific to FreeBSD anyway.

In D9903#204943, @trix_juniper.net wrote:

If we don’t give them the function to register the handler there shouldn’t
be any expectation ;)

In D9903#204653, @trix_juniper.net wrote:

The reason for adding this function is to improve security.
Memset is used to overwrite sensitive memory.
But the compiler can legally optimize away a memset.
The compiler can not optimize away memset_s.

A link with a deeper explanation
https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/c/MSC06-C.+Beware+of+c
ompiler+optimizations

Though the _s functions did make it into the C11 standard, there is a reason why they are in an appendix and not part of the core specification. They are controversial. I personally find them pretty much useless, and think of them as garbage that Microsoft managed to shove through WG14's throat. I've once read that Microsoft's implementation of these functions is also incompatible with what's described in the C11 appendix, but I have no sources to back that up right now.

By the time I see multiple atomics operations stacked like this, I start to wonder: isn't there a way to guarantee this by simply using locking APIs? We already call VT_LOCK()/VT_UNLOCK(), it seems. Maybe this is just missing in one of the other places?

Don't forget to 'svn add' the pkg-plist.

Looks good to me, except that I don't know everything about umtx internals to judge whether those changes are all right. ;-)

In D9169#190948, @cem wrote:

So I think we need the compatibility shim.

In D9169#189621, @cem wrote:

I'll plan to do an exp-run first.

I like the idea, but I think it would make more sense to do this a bit more slowly. For example, we could use this change to add stubs for these keywords for old compilers to sys/cdefs.h. Then we could decide to add these annotations header by header and not add those #pragma directives at all. Simply annotate a header file entirely or don't do it at all.

Ah, interesting! As you mentioned, it is indeed the case that Clang doesn't like it if you pass in function objects instead of function pointers. This code:

Sounds like a good idea to go in this direction, but I'd actually do this even more aggressively: aim at converging towards glibc's prototype entirely. See this comment I actually wrote more than a year ago in the Austin Group's bug tracker:

Gah! Sorry for the noise!