Re: [Development] Container refactor update

Hi Thiago, [you knew this would be coming, I don't let you down] On Monday June 18 2012, Thiago Macieira wrote: > * port QList Before actually porting QList (esp. as I take the above to mean that QList won't be bound to void* slots anymore): Is there than *anything* in QList that QVector doesn

[Development] qtrepotools: Updated instructions for installer creation

Hi, updated and more comprehensive instructions for Qt 5 Beta installer creation (installer build scripts) can be found here: https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,28507 The new version of instructions describe better step-by-step instructions how to build installer based on the default con

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

Just a reminder that these changes are causing failure to build debug dumper in Creator. ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/de

[Development] Creator build failed of latest Qt5

> > D:\qpSOFT\MyDEV\sdk\qt\bin\amd64\moc.exe -DUNICODE -DWIN32 > -DQT_LARGEFILE_SUPPORT -DCORE_LIBRARY -DIDE_LIBRARY_BASENAME=\"lib\" > -DQT_NO_CAST_TO_ASCII -DQT_USE_FAST_OPERATOR_PLUS > -DQT_USE_FAST_CONCATENATION -D_CRT_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS > -DQT_DISABLE_DEPRECATED_BEFORE=0x040900 -DQT_HELP_LIB -

Re: [Development] buildsystem branches (about to be) integrated

Stephen Chu said: > > Is this buildsystem branch the one we get when we just clone qt5 clean? > By that I mean if I go through the steps documented here: > http://qt-project.org/wiki/Building-Qt-5-from-Git is that the same as > this branch. > Hi Stephen, No, the buildsystem branch has not ye

Re: [Development] [cmake-developers] workflow

On 19.06.2012 22:50, Brad King wrote: > On 06/19/2012 04:09 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: >> Some small questions to the workflow: >> >> - I read on the workflow description site >> >> Topic Branch >> ... >> Heads not published (no named branch on server) >> >> What does this mean? I see all

Re: [Development] buildsystem branches (about to be) integrated

On 6/19/12 8:31 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > moin, > > the buildsystem branch of qtbase is currently being integrated. this is > ~120 commits worth of qmake & project file fixes and cleanups. there are > some changes to how modularization (in particular configure tests) is > handled, and cross-b

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 12.01.49, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On segunda-feira, 18 de junho de 2012 23.58.47, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Here's the current status of my endeavour: > Update: QtDeclarative breaks horribly because qhashedstring_p.h uses > QStringData, which has changed comple

[Development] buildsystem branches (about to be) integrated

moin, the buildsystem branch of qtbase is currently being integrated. this is ~120 commits worth of qmake & project file fixes and cleanups. there are some changes to how modularization (in particular configure tests) is handled, and cross-building should be supported without hacks finally. the i

Re: [Development] need to handle touch events rather than depending on mouse event synthesis

Hi, Fredag 15. juni 2012 15.33.03 skrev ext Luciano Wolf: > Hi Frederik, > > How the patches are going? I've interest on this touch related things > as we're having problems with Snowshoe webbrowser running on a N9. I'm > trying your patch (the 50th) against latest valid Qt5 hash but it's > not w

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On 19.06.2012 12:17, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 11.42.10, Peter Kümmel wrote: >> The only big change would be that a moc generated header >> needs to be included: >> >> foo.h: >> >> template >> struct A : public QObject >> { ... >> >> // only defined for moc

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

Thiago Macieira wrote: > Performance considerations: > * ref() does two 1-bit tests before the atomic increment > * deref() does one 1-bit test before the atomic decrement > * needsDetach() does one 2-bit test and a check for the refcount's value I think these are the operations that can afford to

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 11.42.10, Peter Kümmel wrote: > The only big change would be that a moc generated header > needs to be included: > > foo.h: > > template > struct A : public QObject > { ... > > // only defined for moc > Q_QOBJECT_SPECIALISATION(int> > > }; > > #include

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 11.46.13, Peter Kümmel wrote: > > Not very complicated, but the other point is that then one should include > > the moc everywhere. > > And is it really worth it? > > To make QObject THE base class within a framework it is necessary I think. Please read what Oli

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On segunda-feira, 18 de junho de 2012 23.58.47, Thiago Macieira wrote: > Here's the current status of my endeavour: Update: QtDeclarative breaks horribly because qhashedstring_p.h uses QStringData, which has changed completely. Can someone please rewrite QHashedString not to use QStringData? Do n

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On 19.06.2012 11:04, Olivier Goffart wrote: > On Tuesday 19 June 2012 10:22:02 Peter Kümmel wrote: >> On 19.06.2012 10:00, Thiago Macieira wrote: >>> On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 09.51.32, Peter Kümmel wrote: On 19.06.2012 09:11, Rene Jensen wrote: > Is this crazy talk? I would imag

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On 19.06.2012 11:28, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 10.22.02, Peter Kümmel wrote: >>> Moc can understand template code just fine for the output it produces. The >>> problem is that the meta object format does not allow for signals and >>> slots >>> containing template

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 10.22.02, Peter Kümmel wrote: > > Moc can understand template code just fine for the output it produces. The > > problem is that the meta object format does not allow for signals and > > slots > > containing template parameters in their signature. > > But moc cou

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 12.24.58, Alberto Mardegan wrote: > I don't think that Peter was suggesting you to import the code from > "folly", but just to have a look at how it's implemented. IANAL, but I > think that you can have a look at any software code which you obtained > legally, an

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On Tuesday 19 June 2012 10:22:02 Peter Kümmel wrote: > On 19.06.2012 10:00, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 09.51.32, Peter Kümmel wrote: > >> On 19.06.2012 09:11, Rene Jensen wrote: > >>> Is this crazy talk? I would imagine that given a set of containers like > >>> .

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On 19 June 2012 09:24, Alberto Mardegan wrote: > On 06/19/2012 11:58 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote: >> On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 09.54.15, Peter Kümmel wrote: >>> So even no Apache licensed code could be used within Qt? >> >> Irrelevant. The CLA says that I can only submit code I authored my

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On 19 Jun, 2012, at 10:07 , ext Peter Kümmel wrote: > BTW, are there any plans to use lock-free techniques somewhere within Qt? http://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtbase/blobs/master/src/corelib/tools/qfreelist_p.h http://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtbase/blobs/master/src/corelib/tools/qfreelist.cpp ;) > Or

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On 06/19/2012 11:58 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 09.54.15, Peter Kümmel wrote: >> So even no Apache licensed code could be used within Qt? > > Irrelevant. The CLA says that I can only submit code I authored myself. That > excludes everything that has a copyright,

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On 19.06.2012 10:00, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 09.51.32, Peter Kümmel wrote: >> On 19.06.2012 09:11, Rene Jensen wrote: >>> Is this crazy talk? I would imagine that given a set of containers like >>> ... hmm ... QSmartList, QSmartMap, QSmartHash inheriting from QO

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 10.07.36, Peter Kümmel wrote: > BTW, are there any plans to use lock-free techniques somewhere within Qt? > > Or have you already evaluated it? The lock-free strategy looks a bit > like transactional memory: try it until it is right. Morten wrote one implementat

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

BTW, are there any plans to use lock-free techniques somewhere within Qt? Or have you already evaluated it? The lock-free strategy looks a bit like transactional memory: try it until it is right. Peter ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On 19.06.2012 09:58, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 09.54.15, Peter Kümmel wrote: >> So even no Apache licensed code could be used within Qt? > > Irrelevant. The CLA says that I can only submit code I authored myself. That > excludes everything that has a copyright, re

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 09.51.32, Peter Kümmel wrote: > On 19.06.2012 09:11, Rene Jensen wrote: > > Is this crazy talk? I would imagine that given a set of containers like > > ... hmm ... QSmartList, QSmartMap, QSmartHash inheriting from QObject > > (yes, I know ... moc and templates bl

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 09.54.15, Peter Kümmel wrote: > So even no Apache licensed code could be used within Qt? Irrelevant. The CLA says that I can only submit code I authored myself. That excludes everything that has a copyright, regardless of the license. Third-party code can only

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On 19.06.2012 09:39, Thiago Macieira wrote: > On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 09.21.46, Peter Kümmel wrote: >> On 19.06.2012 08:44, Thiago Macieira wrote: >>> Yes, I know about it. No, I did not look at it. I cannot do that because I >>> need to write code of my own. I cannot look at other peop

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On 19.06.2012 09:11, Rene Jensen wrote: > > Is this crazy talk? I would imagine that given a set of containers like ... > hmm ... QSmartList, QSmartMap, QSmartHash > inheriting from QObject (yes, I know ... moc and templates bla bla - I could > live with fixed key/value-types if that's > what it

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On terça-feira, 19 de junho de 2012 09.21.46, Peter Kümmel wrote: > On 19.06.2012 08:44, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Yes, I know about it. No, I did not look at it. I cannot do that because I > > need to write code of my own. I cannot look at other people's code and > > submit to the Qt Project unde

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On 19.06.2012 08:44, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Yes, I know about it. No, I did not look at it. I cannot do that because I > need to write code of my own. I cannot look at other people's code and submit > to the Qt Project under the CLA, unless it's in the public domain. > You must not read other

Re: [Development] Container refactor update

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote: > Here's the current status of my endeavour: > > Hi Thiago. As you may have figured out by now, I am one of those who plea for an extra set of container widgets deriving from QObject. You know, so they can support slots and signals. But se