> How is it ia win for std::vector to achieve next year what QVector has done > for the past 7 or 8?
Not to mention we are likely far away from the time C++17 becomes a requirement to use or build Qt. Philippe On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:03:03 -0200 Thiago Macieira <thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: > Em quinta-feira, 29 de dezembro de 2016, às 09:32:19 BRST, Giuseppe D'Angelo > escreveu: > > Il 29/12/2016 06:56, Philippe ha scritto: > > > Sometimes there are discussions about what is best QVector vs > > > std::vector, and here we have a good "plus" for QVector. > > > > In C++17 std::vector (well, std::allocator) must honour overly-aligned > > > > types: > > > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0035r4.html > > > > GCC 7 and Clang 4 already implement it. > > > > Before C++17 you could've used an aligned allocator like Boost.Align. > > QVector doesn't allow custom allocators, so here we have a win for > > std::vector. > > How is it ia win for std::vector to achieve next year what QVector has done > for the past 7 or 8? > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > > _______________________________________________ > Interest mailing list > Interest@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
