On 2015-07-23 08:23, Marc Mutz wrote: > On Thursday 08 January 2015 23:33:34 Thiago Macieira wrote: >> * Q_NULLPTR - strongly encouraged > > Ok, trying to summarize the discussion so we can move forward. > > There's a bug report (https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-45291) about Qt > headers not compiling with -Wzero-as-null-pointer-constant, sometimes not > even > when locking the Qt headers away behind an -isystem. I understood the > discussion in this thread as follows: > > - ok to use Q_NULLPTR in public headers (the bug report suggests that this > should actually be enforced by headersclean).
The bug reporter would appreciate that, yes :-). Especially in macros (e.g. Q_OBJECT¹) and default parameter values. (The reporter would also appreciate https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43486 getting fixed, but that doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon :-(. And no, I'm not asking Qt to fix GCC bugs; just mentioning it because it is pertinent.) (¹ Pedantic: the original report indicates that the problem in Q_OBJECT is indirect, via QT_TR_FUNCTIONS. IIRC in 4.8.x there are a lot more such issues in Q_OBJECT, most of which have been fixed by now. Also, QT_TR_FUNCTIONS may be fixed already in 5.5; I haven't checked yet.) -- Matthew _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
