30.12.2016, 13:29, "Philippe" <philw...@gmail.com>: >> 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.
To be fair, nothing prevents anyone from starting using C++1z right now in their projects, without waiting for it to become a requirement for 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 -- Regards, Konstantin _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
