On Sunday, 4 June 2023 11:51:54 PDT Marc Mutz via Development wrote: > > The other problem is I want to take a second, thorough look at your > > #ifdefs > > for C++20. I have a feeling some of the changing return types are a recipe > > for binary compatibility problems, if not in our own code, then in code > > that uses our code. I need to sit down and think about whether this is a > > valid scenario or not. > > All functions that alternate between returning Q*Ordering and > std::*_ordering must be, and are, inline non-exported.
And that's exactly what I want to look at. It doesn't affect *our* binary compatibility, but may affect downstream of us. Worse than a clear binary compatibility problem would be a silent data incompatibility problem (in particular, the value of the Unordered constant). I don't want to rush this. If you want to preemptively remove the problem by not changing the return type, then one area of my concerns goes away. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Cloud Software Architect - Intel DCAI Cloud Engineering
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
