Hi Volker, >________________________________________ >From: Development <development-boun...@qt-project.org> on behalf of Volker >Hilsheimer <volker.hilshei...@qt.io>
>I agree that it would be great if users of Qt could flip on aggressive compile >options to get warnings about narrowing-conversions. >But again, is that worth it? And is that more important to users than having a >few releases of Qt where they don’t have to constantly >chase after new deprecations? I honestly doubt it. I know a few folks in the >Creator and Design Studio teams that would love a Qt >release or two with no new warnings. >So, I in principle agree with your plan, but let’s focus on the modules where >there is at least a plausible usecase for >2G data. >For the rest, reach out to the respective maintainers, please. I'd like to rephrase the above to ensure I correctly understand Volker here: The suggestion is to do the conversion to API's which benefit from >2G data only. In such cases the changes would be done such that we only add the converted API behind guards which come into effect in Qt 7 (QT_DEPRECATED_SINCE/QT_REMOVED_SINCE(7,0)). This means we don't need fancy overload solution for getter like int size() vs qsizetype size() as we are talking about a switch at Qt 7 time. Is this your suggestion Volker? I would support this solution as I have the same concern about never-ending porting requirements for our users. -- Alex _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
