Hi Uwe, I quickly reviewed QSkinny and it really nicely exposes C++ to Qml. I can't see however, how you made e.g. QskVariant::stops readable from Qml. Writing stops is possible due to QMetaType::registerConvertes, but how you can iterate overs stop from Qml?
Thanks in advance for clarification, Tomek PS: I also tried to have the same implementation for C++ and Qt Qml and now some classes contains duplicated getters/setters (QVariantList instead of QVector<C++Type>). 2018-05-31 9:48 GMT+02:00 Chris Adams <chris.ad...@qinetic.com.au>: > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:21 PM, Uwe Rathmann <uwe.rathm...@tigertal.de> > wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > >> I ran benchmarks comparing a release build of 5.12 against 5.1.1 and ran > >> the benchmark mentioned in the task, where Qt 5.12 came out in average > >> faster by a factor of 4. > > > > Christophers comment in the JIRA ticket raises some questions concerning > > the correctness of those benchmarks. > > > > Would you be so kind to clarify how far we can trust in these numbers ? > > I did have a couple of questions about that particular benchmark > result, but that doesn't mean that the conclusion is incorrect. > > It's important to note that the issue may lie in the original numbers, > as the library metrics test previously used some hand-rolled methods > to discard outliers and perform an average, and worked on wall time > rather than cpu ticks - a method which may very well have been wrong > (and that would be entirely my fault). > > Also, it is worth pointing out that recently a considerable effort has > been made to improve the benchmarking of all stages of QtQuick > applications (from the JS side of things, to the QML compiler side of > things, to the scene graph side of things), as the grafana and > qmlbench etc tracking proves. Performance regressions are now being > caught, and performance metrics are easily visible, thanks to those > efforts, and that is definitely have a very positive effect on > performance outcomes for everyone. > > FWIW I am certain that the QML engine in Qt 5.12 will indeed perform > better than it did in Qt 5.1 days (or any other version of Qt) because > the people working most closely with the engine and the people working > most closely with QtQuick both believe it to be so, and I trust their > judgement. > > Best regards, > Chris. > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development >
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
