On 2 Nov 2018, at 09:04, Philippe <philw...@gmail.com<mailto:philw...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I did some benchmarking (as we were worried about the different performance characteristics of QList and QVector) and with the exception of prepending in a loop pretty much all other operations gets faster with this change. Another exception is certainly the sorting of large objects that are not implicit-shared classes. True. But for 99% of the cases where QList is being used today performance would probably increase when using a vector instead. That’s especially true when you have objects that are larger than a pointer. Ok anyway. But keeping the old QList under a new name, cannot harm. Sure, we can have a Q5List around in Qt 6 times, or people could simply copy the code if they need it. Much of Qt was built with QList, so QList can't be that bad ;) That conclusion doesn’t have to be true. But yes, QList was ok, because most of what we put into it were implicitly shared classes. But a QList<QRect> is actually a very bad idea (just to give one example). Cheers, Lars Philippe On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 07:51:22 +0000 Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io<mailto:lars.kn...@qt.io>> wrote: Renaming the subthread (it’s got nothing to do with build systems…) I believe I have a solution to get rid of QList without breaking SC in any major way. See https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/242199/ and the following changes. I did some benchmarking (as we were worried about the different performance characteristics of QList and QVector) and with the exception of prepending in a loop pretty much all other operations gets faster with this change. So to re-iterate: We will not break SC in major ways. The goal is to make porting from Qt 5.x to 6 as easy as possible. Cheers, Lars On 30 Oct 2018, at 20:21, NIkolai Marchenko <enmarantis...@gmail.com<mailto:enmarantis...@gmail.com>> wrote: > No, we will break source compatibility in a minor way. I am not aware of what was the end result of QList discussion, but didn't you want to deprecate/majorly change that at some point? That alone would be rather huge. On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 10:19 PM Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com<mailto:thiago.macie...@intel.com>> wrote: On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 12:11:38 PDT NIkolai Marchenko wrote: > > That's not going to happen any more than our breaking source > > compatibility in > a major way. > > You are breaking source compatibility in a major way with Qt6 ... ;) No, we will break source compatibility in a minor way. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com<http://intel.com/> Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org<mailto:Development@qt-project.org> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org<mailto:Development@qt-project.org> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org<mailto: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
