Re: rb_tree_iterate(3) documentation vs. implementation

[Mindaugas Rasiukevicius <rmind%netbsd.org@localhost>]

David Young <dyoung%pobox.com@localhost> wrote:
> Regarding pr/46034, the manual describes one behavior for
> rb_tree_iterate(3), while the implementation actually provides another.
> The behavior described in the manual seems much more sensible and
> useful, and I would like to change the implementation to match: see the
> attached patch.

- The patch is wrong as is: all callers of rb_tree_iterate(3), including
  RB_{MIN,MAX}, but there are quite more in the tree need to be audited
  and where required fix.

- There is also PR/45893.  The reason why these changes were not made are
  concerns about breaking backwards compatibility (apparently, there are
  3rd party users of this library already).  In theory, it is not too late,
  as netbsd-6 will be the first release shipping rbtree(3), but we need to
  reach the consensus on this.

-- 
Mindaugas