On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 02:38:40PM +0200, Jędrzej Nowacki wrote:
> On Thursday 17 of July 2014 13:33:49 Daniel Teske wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 Jul 2014 13:28:10 Jędrzej Nowacki wrote:
> > > On Thursday 17 of July 2014 10:51:03 you wrote:
> > > > QVariant::operator== is not symmetric
> > > >
> > >
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 02:36:22PM +0200, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> On Thursday 17 July 2014 13:33:49 Daniel Teske wrote:
> > A equals operator that is not symetric is broken. Such a class cannot be
> > reliably used in std nor qt containers. Or do you know which way around,
> > QList::contains uses
On Thursday 17 July 2014 12:20:56 Olivier Goffart wrote:
> But Qt don't use custom allocators. According to grep, the only place where
> "operator new" is used directly in Qt is QSharedPointer[2]. And I believe
> it is better to change the code to call the normal new. (I'm not sure why
> it's done
On Jul 17, 2014, at 3:14 PM, Ziller Eike wrote:
>
> On Jul 17, 2014, at 1:28 PM, Jędrzej Nowacki
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 17 of July 2014 10:51:03 you wrote:
>>> QVariant::operator== is not symmetric
>>>
>>>QDateTime dateTime = QDateTime::currentDateTime();
>>> QTime time = dateTime.
On Jul 17, 2014, at 1:28 PM, Jędrzej Nowacki wrote:
> On Thursday 17 of July 2014 10:51:03 you wrote:
>> QVariant::operator== is not symmetric
>>
>> QDateTime dateTime = QDateTime::currentDateTime();
>>QTime time = dateTime.time();
>>
>>qDebug() << (QVariant(dateTime) == QVariant(t
On Jul 17, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Jędrzej Nowacki wrote:
> On Thursday 17 of July 2014 13:33:49 Daniel Teske wrote:
>> On Thursday 17 Jul 2014 13:28:10 Jędrzej Nowacki wrote:
>>> On Thursday 17 of July 2014 10:51:03 you wrote:
QVariant::operator== is not symmetric
QDateTime dateTi
On Sunday 06 July 2014 23:55:14 BogDan wrote:
> [..]
>
> >> I presume that changing the semantics here (i.e. triggering
> >> QAbstractState::onExited when the machine is stopped) isn't appropriate,
> >> as it may break existing applications, but I'm not exactly sure.
> >
> >I think it would be far
On Thursday 17 of July 2014 13:33:49 Daniel Teske wrote:
> On Thursday 17 Jul 2014 13:28:10 Jędrzej Nowacki wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 of July 2014 10:51:03 you wrote:
> > > QVariant::operator== is not symmetric
> > >
> > > QDateTime dateTime = QDateTime::currentDateTime();
> > >
> > >
On Thursday 17 July 2014 13:33:49 Daniel Teske wrote:
> A equals operator that is not symetric is broken. Such a class cannot be
> reliably used in std nor qt containers. Or do you know which way around,
> QList::contains uses the equals operation?
Note that none of the class which have a member o
On Thursday 17 Jul 2014 13:28:10 Jędrzej Nowacki wrote:
> On Thursday 17 of July 2014 10:51:03 you wrote:
> > QVariant::operator== is not symmetric
> >
> > QDateTime dateTime = QDateTime::currentDateTime();
> >
> > QTime time = dateTime.time();
> >
> > qDebug() << (QVariant(
Hello together,
in KDE I reverse my scrolling and all applications use the reversed scrolling,
only those who are build with my build (5.3.1) of Qt are using the native
scrolling of my system. If I build my applications with the prebuild libraries
scrolling is working, the way its configured in
On Thursday 17 of July 2014 10:51:03 you wrote:
> QVariant::operator== is not symmetric
>
> QDateTime dateTime = QDateTime::currentDateTime();
> QTime time = dateTime.time();
>
> qDebug() << (QVariant(dateTime) == QVariant(time));
> qDebug() << (QVariant(time) == QVariant(dateTim
On Thursday 17 July 2014 10:27:39 Dennis Luehring wrote:
> these new builtins allows clang to optimize operator new/delete
> operations far better then before
>
> __builtin_operator_new
> __builtin_operator_delete
>
> patches in review for clang 3.5
> clang: http://reviews.llvm.org/rL210137
> lib
Hello,
Does anybody succeed to play webkit2/qt5.3.1 on any EGLFS platform? I
failed on two (one mips, one arm) . As I dig more, I found two issues, both
SIGBUS on QtWebProcess . The first one, i created a dirty patch, you can
see [1] . Any suggestions/comments of this patch is appreciated, l
On Jul 16, 2014, at 1:45 PM, Poenitz Andre wrote:
> Olivier Goffart wrote:
>> Jędrzej Nowacki wrote:
>> [...]
What is wrong with string -> int or bytearray -> int?
>>>
>>> At the very least, _implicit_ conversions should not lose data,
>>> i.e. a A a1; B b = a1; A a2 = b; round trip idea
these new builtins allows clang to optimize operator new/delete
operations far better then before
__builtin_operator_new
__builtin_operator_delete
patches in review for clang 3.5
clang: http://reviews.llvm.org/rL210137
libc++: http://reviews.llvm.org/rL210211
the libc++ patch is very small and
16 matches
Mail list logo