On Monday, 20 July 2020 08:40:06 PDT Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> anyway, this can be trivially bypassed by just using an arbitrary
> address and subtracting the offset. or using offsetof, indeed. in any
> case it's 3 minutes of work.
Sorry, an arbitrary address won't work either because it's stil
On Monday, 20 July 2020 11:06:36 PDT Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
> Il 20/07/20 07:21, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
> > ASM is not a solution. There's at least one major compiler (MSVC) that
> > doesn't allow any assembler.
>
> What do you mean, MSVC doesn't allow inline ASM?
Correct.
Il 20/07/20 07:21, Thiago Macieira ha scritto:
ASM is not a solution. There's at least one major compiler (MSVC) that doesn't
allow any assembler.
What do you mean, MSVC doesn't allow inline ASM?
I'm not proposing that the ASM itself needs to be emitted by moc, moc
could just call a function i
On Monday, 20 July 2020 10:26:34 PDT Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> The only dispute in the offsetof article is about whether that
> indirection is UB in C. In C++ it is, and will remain so.
> That's why C++-compliant stddef.h implementations don't do that.
$ gcc -dM -E -include stddef.h -xc++ /dev/nu
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 at 19:09, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Monday, 20 July 2020 08:40:06 PDT Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 07:32:41AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > >I am not going to accept a null-pointer dereference in there. The
> > >static_cast(nullptr)-> must go.
>
On Monday, 20 July 2020 08:40:06 PDT Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 07:32:41AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> >I am not going to accept a null-pointer dereference in there. The
> >static_cast(nullptr)-> must go.
>
> this this construct is actually UB is disputed on wikipedia
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 07:32:41AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
I am not going to accept a null-pointer dereference in there. The
static_cast(nullptr)-> must go.
this this construct is actually UB is disputed on wikipedia (in the
offsetof article).
anyway, this can be trivially bypassed by ju
On Monday, 20 July 2020 01:23:39 PDT Lars Knoll wrote:
> But I don’t see why we would need to do this now, if the code we have works
> fine on current compilers. It’s all non inline, so we could add those kind
> of workarounds only if they become a requirement for a certain compiler.
It's "inlin
Thanks! :-)
Am 20.07.2020 um 14:05 schrieb Alex Blasche:
Hi Arno,
The wainting period has expired. Congratulations.
Since you don't have approver rights already, we need admin support to create a
special rule for qtwebchannel. I have filed a task for it:
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTQAI
Hi Arno,
The wainting period has expired. Congratulations.
Since you don't have approver rights already, we need admin support to create a
special rule for qtwebchannel. I have filed a task for it:
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTQAINFRA-3843
In Jira I fixed you up already.
--
Alex
>
Thanks for the support!
Is there any update on this?
Regards,
Arno
Am 01.07.2020 um 09:15 schrieb Kai Köhne:
Hi,
Thanks Arno for stepping up!
+1 from my side for both nominations (Approver and Maintainer).
And thanks, Milian, for having created & maintained the module for such a long
time
> From: Development on behalf of Ulf
> Hermann
>>> However, for Q_GADGET this would fall apart.
>
> Actually, with a Q_GADGET you usually don't have a private object.
> That's the whole point of it. Then you don't need property wrappers, either.
Just for clarification: actually you usually do h
> On 20 Jul 2020, at 07:24, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Sunday, 19 July 2020 14:42:24 PDT Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
>> * change /*2*/ to use ASM. We know the ABI of the platforms we support
>> and we know how to calculate the correct pointer value, we just need to
>> stop C/C+
13 matches
Mail list logo
