On 2018-10-08 07:13, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Sunday, 7 October 2018 15:17:30 PDT Henry Skoglund wrote:
I recommend against changing Qt.
Hi, but isn't C++17's __has_include preprocessor cmd an implicit
endorsement of #pragma once? I mean, they both assume that the file
namespace is stable and
On Sunday, 7 October 2018 15:17:30 PDT Henry Skoglund wrote:
> > I recommend against changing Qt.
>
> Hi, but isn't C++17's __has_include preprocessor cmd an implicit
> endorsement of #pragma once? I mean, they both assume that the file
> namespace is stable and idempotent.
No, I don't see how on
On 2018-10-07 20:39, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Sunday, 7 October 2018 01:56:47 PDT Lars Knoll wrote:
Hi,
Just a quick question: Does anybody have any good arguments against us
starting to use #pragma once instead of header guards throughout our code
base?
Yes, two:
a) not supported everywher
On Sunday, 7 October 2018 01:56:47 PDT Lars Knoll wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just a quick question: Does anybody have any good arguments against us
> starting to use #pragma once instead of header guards throughout our code
> base?
Yes, two:
a) not supported everywhere
b) not well-defined behaviour when i
On 2018-10-07 09:56, Lars Knoll wrote:
IMO #pragma once is both safer and nicer to use than classic header
guards.
Regarding safety, clang has -Wheader-guard which catches typos in header
guards, so most of our codebase should be ok.
(Would be nice to have clang-cl -Werror builds on our Windo
> On 7 Oct 2018, at 15:18, Sérgio Martins wrote:
>
> On 2018-10-07 09:56, Lars Knoll wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Just a quick question: Does anybody have any good arguments against us
>> starting to use #pragma once instead of header guards throughout our
>> code base?
>
> Hi Lars,
>
>
> This was alread
On 2018-10-07 09:56, Lars Knoll wrote:
Hi,
Just a quick question: Does anybody have any good arguments against us
starting to use #pragma once instead of header guards throughout our
code base?
Hi Lars,
This was already discussed back in January:
https://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/devel
Hi Lars,
I do not really object exclusive use of pragma once, without header
guards ( I use it myself), I just want to tell about my experience on
Debian Stretch with gcc 6.3
1. Using precompiled header, you can run into trouble, if you use
forward header , like qt does, and these do not con
Hi
A small bug in the provisioning scripts of Ubuntu 18.04 prevents the builds
from going through in dev branch currently. We run apt update only after we try
to install the packages. So it's trying to install a package so old it doesn't
exist in the repos anymore.
A fix has landed in 5.12 alr
On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 08:56:47AM +, Lars Knoll wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just a quick question: Does anybody have any good arguments against us
> starting to use #pragma once instead of header guards throughout our
> code base?
Not me.
> I’ve started using it implicitly when updating 3rd party cod
Hi,
Just a quick question: Does anybody have any good arguments against us starting
to use #pragma once instead of header guards throughout our code base?
I’ve started using it implicitly when updating 3rd party code (the macro
assembler) in qtdeclarative without any problems (so I’d supported
> On 6 Oct 2018, at 00:47, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Friday, 5 October 2018 08:35:10 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> Cons:
>> Suppresses move construction as in
>>QCborValue v = array[n];
>> this still compiles, but passes through the copy constructor, not the move
>> one. We cana add an
12 matches
Mail list logo
