In D13706#411805, @rgrimes wrote:

pfg I think you miss understood, and upon looking I was not clear, it is not you that I am unhappy with about "playing with copyrights and licenses", it is NetBSD and possibly Charles Hannum who as Robert points out modified a license without ALL authors approval. I would be very upset if someone disturbed my disclaimer in this manner.

In D13706#411735, @rgrimes wrote:

Upon closer examination of this there are some issues, it alters a license post fact of copyrights asserted by some, and changes the clause in the license from Author to NetBSD, which effects the since of the copyright. I really wish the playing with Copyrights and Licenses would stop, this is a good example, of a well meant change, causing an ugly problem. For examle, the disclaimer is now in the name NetBSD, so what happened to the disclaim asserted by nCircle Network, and Robert Watson?

(trasz is the expert here)

If it's not needed then just lets not spend time on it.

Note that I have no idea of MIPS asm, just noticed the commit on OpenBSD MIPS64 .. feel free to commit if it works for you.

Unsign uh_hashmask
(Don't expect any failure but will test anyways)

In D19148#409628, @mav wrote:

In D19148#409623, @pfg wrote:

I thought of that but I saw a -1 when calculating it:

hash->uh_hashmask = hash->uh_hashsize - 1;

.A hashsize of zero makes little sense but it is still a valid value (?).

hashsize of zero makes no sense to me. I haven't checked how exactly it is initialized and whether it is used for some implementation reasons, but smallest possible size of hash is 1 with mask of 0. For size of 0 there is just no meaningful mask. Plus few places where uh_hashmask is used, do not care whether it is negative or overflown unsigned.

Missing hval unsigning (pointed out by mav).

In D19148#409622, @mav wrote:

Generally I agree with it. I spotted it too when worked on my change. It just needs 8 times more RAM then what we have now to overflow, so I preferred my patch to be minimal. Just going that way, why not make uh_hashmask also unsigned?

FWIW, this is currently my favorite IDE on FreeBSD: netbeans has problems refreshing.
VSCode is not yet ported :(.

FWIW, I have a patch from the late ache@ to finish the removal of __collate_range_cmp() started in r302512.
It is practically impossible to remove a symbol as that would in theory break the ABI, so I understand we may be wary of adding new ones.

Fix issues pointed out by mat@

• Update to 2018.3.2
• Move to devel as we don't really depend on the intellij infrastructure.
• Use native file watching support as in the latest intellij port.

Minore updates

Commtted as r342379

Thanks for the suggestions.

Keep the documentation consitent in the headers and manpage as well.
(Yes, I still have to update the manpage date before committing).

For the record: while it is good practice to request reviews before committing, IMHO they dont make much sense, and are not required at all, for reverts. After all they stand for things all the initial reviewers missed in the first place ;).

In D18579#396127, @cy wrote:

I haven't figured out how to diff deleted files in git yet. I'll upload it soon.

If people decide not to make a decision now this revision can be abandoned and I can save it for later. git stash is my friend.

In D18579#396118, @rgrimes wrote:

Age should not be a criteria for removal. BSD is old, very old, shall we remove it simply cause it is old? IMHO you all are getting way ahead of the process, having reviews to remove code before the cost/benefit and open discussions happens is backwards.

Fix mamdoc issues.

Use WRKSRC instead of WRKDIST.
Still passes portlint and check-plist

Really add the symlink

In D18445#392821, @rpokala wrote:

Please create links for ext3fs.5 and ext4fs.5; in share/man/man5/Makefile, add these to the list:

MLINKS+= ext2fs.5 ext3fs.5
MLINKS+= ext2fs.5 ext4fs.5

I agree the ext4fs link is useful. the ext3fs is probably not

Add a soflink for ext4fs. I am not currently adding a link to ext3 since
linux doesn't seem to carry it anymore and we don't support the main
feature it brought: journalling.

LGTM

Nice!

Looks good to me, but it would be nice to have input from kevans as well.

Aha .. so nice to find a bug , thanks !

I am not an expert on the area but I see where the comment comes from:

In D17917#382796, @jack_gandi.net wrote:

In D17917#382778, @pfg wrote:

Maybe a sweep with opengrok is a good idea to see where we should be using this.

I don't know about opengrok, but this is a new feature only affecting a small part of the ABI so it seems pretty well contained.

In D17903#382777, @bapt wrote:

In D17903#382776, @pfg wrote:

For the record ...

We really do need to update libedit (from NetBSD).
These changes are welcome but I fear the approach of trying to preserve our changes is not sustainable anymore

Someone brave, and with time, has to take the step of just bringing the NetBSD version ...

I did it once, it is not that hard, and our version right now is not that far from there version is it? for the record, I have also contacted christos@ by email so he can wait on this review.

Maybe a sweep with opengrok is a good idea to see where we should be using this.

For the record ...

LGTM.
(I currently don't have the time to go over to Release Engineering for this though ::-/ )

In D17083#364265, @pfg wrote:

This is likely to cause huge havoc in the ports tree: we created the API and Apple adopted it. Later glibc and NetBSD adopted their own variant.

This is likely to cause huge havoc in the ports tree: we created the API and Apple adopted it. Later glibc and NetBSD adopted their own variant.

In D16722#356962, @kib wrote:

In D16722#356907, @pfg wrote:

In D16722#356897, @kib wrote:

I do not think that functions definitions need to use __restrict. libthr is compiled only with C99 compiler, never C89 nor C++, so direct use of the restrict keyword is fine.

In D16722#356695, @kib wrote:

In D16722#356631, @pfg wrote:

Checked for compliance against POSIX/SUSv4-2018.
Document the changes in the man pages.

In D16722#356491, @kib wrote:

In D16722#356448, @pfg wrote:

In D16722#356440, @kib wrote:

Did you verified include/pthread.h against POSIX/SUSv4-2018 ?

No, I only checked individual functions against the public v2-1997, which came up first in my search.

It does not matter much which version of POSIX you used. I am concerned with the header change to match at least some standard.

Avoid const poisoning the private functions by using __DECONST early.

In D16722#356440, @kib wrote:

Did you verified include/pthread.h against POSIX/SUSv4-2018 ?