On 01/07/2017 12:58 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
On 01/07/2017 12:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
On 01/06/2017 10:37 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
On 01/06/2017 08:05 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
On 01/06/2017 07:17 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Just to conclude I did try the attached benchmark and I get the
fol
On 01/07/2017 01:04 PM, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
Oh, looks like you are going to learn about lots of other wonderful memory
allocators soon. There is no real need to keep us informed about each of them
(I guess most of interested folks are already well-aware of them), but please
make sure you
Oh, looks like you are going to learn about lots of other wonderful memory
allocators soon. There is no real need to keep us informed about each of them
(I guess most of interested folks are already well-aware of them), but please
make sure you've studied prior art thoroughly before designing yo
On 01/07/2017 12:11 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
On 01/06/2017 10:37 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
On 01/06/2017 08:05 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
On 01/06/2017 07:17 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Just to conclude I did try the attached benchmark and I get the
following on a x86_64 @ 2.40 GHz:
0: 61331143.40
On 01/06/2017 10:37 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
On 01/06/2017 08:05 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
On 01/06/2017 07:17 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Just to conclude I did try the attached benchmark and I get the
following on a x86_64 @ 2.40 GHz:
0: 61331143.40263957 allocations / second
1: 63644162.939240
Hi,
Brief "update": dev is still blocked.
The build issue of https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-57935 appears to be
due to the removal of macOS 10.9 support, while the CI still builds with 10.9.
We can't bring qt5.git up-to-date with a newer qtbase that includes the pcre
fix, because the
