On quarta-feira, 4 de setembro de 2013 23:37:50, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Deprecation warnings are not errors. They are left as warnings.
>
> Besides, how is this different from a change in a library causing a
> compiler error? There have been several of those due to reliance on
> indirect includ
On quinta-feira, 5 de setembro de 2013 08:16:39, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> II agree with André here.
> You will also have to whitelist the version of all the libraries, else a new
> version of libpng/openssl/xcb/whatever add new unavoidable warning or
> deprecate function used in Qt. And a develope
On Wednesday 04 September 2013 22:13:34 André Pönitz wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 04:37:54PM +0200, John Layt wrote:
> > -developer-buildOn 4 September 2013 15:21, Poenitz Andre
> >
> > wrote:
> > > That's wasting our time, as predicted.
> > >
> > > ../../corelib/tools/qdatetime.cpp: In func
On 9/5/13 8:02 AM, "Olivier Goffart" wrote:
>On Wednesday 04 September 2013 20:09:38 Knoll Lars wrote:
>
>> >You also can typedef QScopedPointer QUniquePointer; and deprecate the
>> >former
>> >name.
>>
>> typedef's are usually not such a good idea, as forward declarations
>>won't
>> work the wa
On Wednesday 04 September 2013 20:09:38 Knoll Lars wrote:
> >You also can typedef QScopedPointer QUniquePointer; and deprecate the
> >former
> >name.
>
> typedef's are usually not such a good idea, as forward declarations won't
> work the way people expect them to.
>
Unrelated, but i think w
On Wednesday 04 September 2013 18:45:45 Alexandr Akulich wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Im totally agree with Stephen, because such change definitely complicate
> source reading.
> When one read "ScopedPointer", then one naturally expect that stored object
> will be deleted.
Except it is not.
If someone do
On 9/5/13 2:00 AM, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>On quarta-feira, 4 de setembro de 2013 22:37:55, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
>> On 4 September 2013 22:15, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> > When there is a
>> > need for QUniquePointer in the future, it is added.
>>
>> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change
On quarta-feira, 4 de setembro de 2013 22:37:55, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> On 4 September 2013 22:15, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > When there is a
> > need for QUniquePointer in the future, it is added.
>
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,64686 :-D
We should add QUniquePointer only when w
On quarta-feira, 4 de setembro de 2013 20:24:04, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> Sorry, but you never mentioned this option in the first email...
I did, several times in the discussions.
> To put it another way: will "configure -developer-build" enable -Werror or
> not?
-developer-build enables -Werr
On quarta-feira, 4 de setembro de 2013 16:47:15, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 September 2013 16:42:38 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> > On 4 September 2013 16:20, Sergio Ahumada
wrote:
> > > My guess is that on Ubuntu the compiler is too old (4.6.3 is on Ubuntu
> > > 12.04 but that doesn't
Hi,
I can't find the right way to enable texture mapper in the qtwebkit
can someone tell me how/where to add the "texmap" to the CONFIG?
I'm compiling the qt-5.1.0
thanks
Haithem
--
*
Never say that's "impossible", the word itself says "I'm Possible"
*
On 4 September 2013 22:15, Stephen Kelly wrote:
> When there is a
> need for QUniquePointer in the future, it is added.
https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,64686 :-D
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
ht
> I think adding general information to method or properties are a good
> idea.
> The current tag system is indeed very limited.
> But before trying to get something to general, we need to focus on use
> cases.
Alright, I present to you: libAuth, a authentication framework which
lets the
dev writ
On 9/3/13 6:30 PM, "Thiago Macieira" wrote:
>On terça-feira, 3 de setembro de 2013 11:42:04, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> you did, however, make no effort to substantiate your position.
>> an argument against your interpretation is for example bisectability.
>> also, it's just plain illogical to
On 9/4/13 8:09 PM, "Peter Kümmel" wrote:
>On 04.09.2013 17:54, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> On quarta-feira, 4 de setembro de 2013 10:20:39, Peter Kümmel wrote:
What's that something else? Remember that QScopedPointer was created
to
simplify handling of exceptions (when we tried to c
On Wednesday, September 04, 2013 19:48:53 Knoll Lars wrote:
> Given that we have less then 3 weeks until feature freeze (1) or (3) sound
> more attractive for 5.2.
That's not relevant.
QScopedPointer is not moved anywhere in Qt 5.2. No code depends on the patch.
My revert should be approved and
On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 04:37:54PM +0200, John Layt wrote:
> -developer-buildOn 4 September 2013 15:21, Poenitz Andre
> wrote:
> >
> > That's wasting our time, as predicted.
> >
> > ../../corelib/tools/qdatetime.cpp: In function 'time_t
> > qt_mktime(QDate*, QTime*, QDateTimePrivate::Spec*, QStrin
On 9/4/13 11:20 PM, "Janusz Lewandowski" wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 19:48:53 + Knoll Lars wrote
>
>> So then there are basically two options:
>>
>> 1. We extend QScopedPointer and live with the fact that the name is not
>> perfect, as scoping can be broken explicitly.
>> 2. We add a QUnique
On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 19:48:53 + Knoll Lars wrote
> So then there are basically two options:
>
> 1. We extend QScopedPointer and live with the fact that the name is not
> perfect, as scoping can be broken explicitly.
> 2. We add a QUniquePointer that has pretty much the functionality that we
>
On 4 September 2013 20:22, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> Yes, that's what I said in my email. It was highly unlikely that it would have
> got integrated the first time if the builds used -Werror.
>
> That's why there's an opt-in option: configure -warnings-are-errors (or
> configure -Werror).
Sorry,
On quarta-feira, 4 de setembro de 2013 16:03:31, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
> On 9/4/13 15:58 , Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> > On 4 September 2013 15:21, Poenitz Andre wrote:
> >> That's wasting our time, as predicted.
> >>
> >> ../../corelib/tools/qdatetime.cpp: In function 'time_t qt_mktime(QDate*,
>
On 04.09.2013 17:54, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quarta-feira, 4 de setembro de 2013 10:20:39, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>>> What's that something else? Remember that QScopedPointer was created to
>>> simplify handling of exceptions (when we tried to care about exceptions).
>>> If we have to take the poi
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Tor Arne Vestbø
wrote:
> CI not using -developer-build I presume?
>
It does:
http://testresults.qt-project.org/ci/QtBase_dev_Integration/latest-success/
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Sletta Gunnar wrote:
>
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Mark wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 8:23 PM, Nicolás Alvarez <
> nicolas.alva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2013/9/3 Mark :
> > > psst:
> http://blog.qt.digia.com/blog/2013/09/02/new-scene-graph-renderer/
> > >
On quarta-feira, 4 de setembro de 2013 16:37:54, John Layt wrote:
> The real problem is not Thiago's change per se, but instead CI
> allowing changes with warnings like mine to be merged. Perhaps we
> need to revert until CI has the required -developer-build instances?
I think the CI should pass
On quarta-feira, 4 de setembro de 2013 10:20:39, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> > What's that something else? Remember that QScopedPointer was created to
> > simplify handling of exceptions (when we tried to care about exceptions).
> > If we have to take the pointer out and handle it manually, it defeats th
-developer-buildOn 4 September 2013 15:21, Poenitz Andre
wrote:
>
> That's wasting our time, as predicted.
>
> ../../corelib/tools/qdatetime.cpp: In function 'time_t qt_mktime(QDate*,
> QTime*, QDateTimePrivate::Spec*, QString*, bool*)':
> ../../corelib/tools/qdatetime.cpp:258:34: error: comparis
On Wednesday 04 September 2013 16:42:38 Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> On 4 September 2013 16:20, Sergio Ahumada wrote:
> > My guess is that on Ubuntu the compiler is too old (4.6.3 is on Ubuntu
> > 12.04 but that doesn't use -developer-build);
>
> So probably more configurations should be added to C
On 4 September 2013 16:03, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
> CI not using -developer-build I presume?
Not quite (that'll exclude most autotests...), cf.
http://qt-project.org/wiki/CI_Configurations
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo
___
Development mailing list
Development@
On 4 September 2013 16:47, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> Why don't we put -Werror ONLY in the CI?
IMHO, because if I have the same compiler version, I'd like to get the
error locally (before pushing and staging).
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo
___
Development mailin
See GlobalConfig at the operation documentation
http://doc-snapshot.qt-project.org/qtifw-master/operations.html
function Component() {}
Component.prototype.createOperations = function()
{
// call the base create operations function
component.createOperations();component.addOperation("Glo
On 4 September 2013 16:20, Sergio Ahumada wrote:
>
> My guess is that on Ubuntu the compiler is too old (4.6.3 is on Ubuntu
> 12.04 but that doesn't use -developer-build);
So probably more configurations should be added to CI (maybe Fedora
19, which isn't a Debian-derivate, and ships with gcc 4.8
> The real problem is not Thiago's change per se, but instead CI
> allowing changes with warnings like mine to be merged. Perhaps we
> need to revert until CI has the required -developer-build instances?
please do NOT blame the CI for everything. this is NOT a CI problem.
On 9/4/13 15:58 , Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
> On 4 September 2013 15:21, Poenitz Andre wrote:
>>
>> That's wasting our time, as predicted.
>>
>> ../../corelib/tools/qdatetime.cpp: In function 'time_t qt_mktime(QDate*,
>> QTime*, QDateTimePrivate::Spec*, QString*, bool*)':
>> ../../corelib/tools/qd
On 09/04/2013 04:03 PM, Tor Arne Vestbø wrote:
> On 9/4/13 15:58 , Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote:
>> On 4 September 2013 15:21, Poenitz Andre wrote:
>>>
>>> That's wasting our time, as predicted.
>>>
>>> ../../corelib/tools/qdatetime.cpp: In function 'time_t qt_mktime(QDate*,
>>> QTime*, QDateTimePriva
On 4 September 2013 15:21, Poenitz Andre wrote:
>
> That's wasting our time, as predicted.
>
> ../../corelib/tools/qdatetime.cpp: In function 'time_t qt_mktime(QDate*,
> QTime*, QDateTimePrivate::Spec*, QString*, bool*)':
> ../../corelib/tools/qdatetime.cpp:258:34: error: comparison between signe
That's wasting our time, as predicted.
../../corelib/tools/qdatetime.cpp: In function 'time_t qt_mktime(QDate*,
QTime*, QDateTimePrivate::Spec*, QString*, bool*)':
../../corelib/tools/qdatetime.cpp:258:34: error: comparison between signed and
unsigned integer expressions [-Werror=sign-compare]
Hi all!
I've been working on top of Qt installer framework in the last week, so
I could drop the usage of NSIS. But, to do that, I need to access, in
Windows, the user registry (ex. HKEY_FOOBAR).
Is there a way to do this? I've search all over the place, and didn't
find any kind of example o
Hi all.
Im totally agree with Stephen, because such change definitely complicate
source reading.
When one read "ScopedPointer", then one naturally expect that stored object
will be deleted.
My 2 cents.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> Commit 5b9006bbdba7dc
Yes yes a thousand times yes!
On 9/3/13 14:41 , Sorvig Morten wrote:
> I think the advantages of having these functions available in QtCore/Gui
> outweighs the risk of customers accidentally using platform-dependent code.
> Maintenance will be easier since there is less code duplication.
>
> Mor
04.09.2013 09:36, Olivier Goffart пишет:
>
> It is unfortunate that the standard did not choose the name
> std::scoped_pointer, but that's not the first time the standard and Qt are
> using different name (QByteArray <> std::string, QLinkedList <> std::list,
> ...)
I think, there is a real reas
Hello!
03.09.2013 15:33, Stephen Kelly ?:
On Tuesday, September 03, 2013 12:48:51 Daniel Teske wrote:
*const* unique_ptr is a scoped ptr. So QScopedPointer is a NIH irregardless
of a move support.
First of all, I think, you should define what is a 'scoped'.
A const unique_ptr is like a
On 04.09.2013 09:16, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quarta-feira, 4 de setembro de 2013 09:00:14, Peter Kümmel wrote:
>> But then you could use take() add wrap the pointer with something else,
>> only this way I would call "explicit".
>
> What's that something else? Remember that QScopedPointer was cr
On Wednesday, September 04, 2013 07:04:32 you wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Friday, October 26, 2012 19:10:15 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > QtBluetooth uses a namespace for public APIs, but QtLocation does not, for
> > example.
> >
> >The qtconnectivity repo will likely be part of Qt 5.2, but it is still not
> >
On Tuesday, September 03, 2013 14:00:39 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> [1] http://isocpp.org/files/papers/n3740.pdf
Some quotes from the pdf:
> In addition to the technical benefits of such smart pointers, their names
provide de facto vocabulary types
That is, names are important, and should match wh
On Wednesday, September 04, 2013 00:16:22 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> To ensure proper RAII, we need to have a hand-off to another object.
What?
Thanks,
--
Join us in October at Qt Developer Days 2013 - https://devdays.kdab.com
Stephen Kelly | Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a
On quarta-feira, 4 de setembro de 2013 09:00:14, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> But then you could use take() add wrap the pointer with something else,
> only this way I would call "explicit".
What's that something else? Remember that QScopedPointer was created to
simplify handling of exceptions (when we
On 03.09.2013 22:12, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 09:20:20PM +0200, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Adding a move contructor to QScopedPointer makes no sense, because moving
means 'escaping the scope', which breaks the fundamental point of
QScopedPointer. QScopedPointer is
Hi,
On Friday, October 26, 2012 19:10:15 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> QtBluetooth uses a namespace for public APIs, but QtLocation does not, for
> example.
>The qtconnectivity repo will likely be part of Qt 5.2, but it is still not
>consistent - it uses a QtBluetooth and QtNfc. Both namespaces should b
On 03.09.2013 22:47, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On terça-feira, 3 de setembro de 2013 22:12:58, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> "A non-null QScopedPointer deletes when it leaves the scope."
>>
>> which sounds quite reasonable to me.
>
> It still does that.
>
> Moving out of a QScopedPointer simply
50 matches
Mail list logo
