On Saturday 11 July 2015 21:50:05 Smith Martin wrote:
> Suppose (as in the use case that started this thread) that your
> QList/QVector/QLinkedList will only have a small number of elements in it.
> Almost always less than 5. Never more than about 8. Does this change the
> analysis at all? In parti
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 01:01:49 PM Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Saturday 11 July 2015 19:50:05 Smith Martin wrote:
> > Suppose (as in the use case that started this thread) that your
> > QList/QVector/QLinkedList will only have a small number of elements in it.
> > Almost always less than 5. Nev
On Saturday 11 July 2015 22:27:26 Marc Mutz wrote:
> On Saturday 11 July 2015 19:25:20 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > But Qt Creator was SO SLOW I noticed this when I tried to compile Qt
> > and moc was horribly slow too.
>
> Does QList still use a linear growth strategy instead of a geometric on
On Saturday 11 July 2015 19:50:05 Smith Martin wrote:
> Suppose (as in the use case that started this thread) that your
> QList/QVector/QLinkedList will only have a small number of elements in it.
> Almost always less than 5. Never more than about 8. Does this change the
> analysis at all? In parti
Suppose (as in the use case that started this thread) that your
QList/QVector/QLinkedList will only have a small number of elements in it.
Almost always less than 5. Never more than about 8. Does this change the
analysis at all? In particular, does it minimize the performance differences?
And s
On Saturday 11 July 2015 19:25:20 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> But Qt Creator was SO SLOW I noticed this when I tried to compile Qt
> and moc was horribly slow too.
Does QList still use a linear growth strategy instead of a geometric one? Same
problem, just less so. Technically still O(N²) behav
On Saturday 11 July 2015 16:49:48 Milian Wolff wrote:
> Thanks to the growth strategies, repeated
> push_back is not that bad,
Oh, yeah. While writing the new qCalculateGrowingBlockSize, I accidentally
made it not grow the block. Of course everything continue to work as before.
But Qt Creator w
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 04:43:49 PM Konrad Rosenbaum wrote:
> On Friday 10 July 2015 17:01:04 Smith Martin wrote:
> > And apparently QVector has the same API as QList now, so why don't we
> > deprecate QList. Let it always create a QVector.
>
> Do you mean deprecate for use inside Qt? Maybe in
On Saturday 11 July 2015 16:24:34 Denis Shienkov wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> Is it possible to add this "QT_DEPRECATED_SINCE" macro to the *cpp file
> if it was missed in there, but in the *h file it is exists?
>
> For example, in some header file it is declared QT_DEPRECATED_SINCE(5,x)
> for the some f
On Friday 10 July 2015 17:01:04 Smith Martin wrote:
> And apparently QVector has the same API as QList now, so why don't we
> deprecate QList. Let it always create a QVector.
Do you mean deprecate for use inside Qt? Maybe in Qt 6 or 7.
In general? For user code as well? HELL NO! (sorry for the sh
Hi all.
Is it possible to add this "QT_DEPRECATED_SINCE" macro to the *cpp file
if it was missed in there, but in the *h file it is exists?
For example, in some header file it is declared QT_DEPRECATED_SINCE(5,x)
for the some foo() method..
So, can I add missed QT_DEPRECATED_SINCE(5,x) and to s
11 matches
Mail list logo
