Hi there,
I'm trying the latest Qt6 snapshot provided by the official installer
on Windows 10 with MSVC 2019.
I've noticed that QMake builds work fine only in Release mode.
Building in Debug mode generates a:
qtmaind.lib(qtmain_win.cpp.obj) : warning LNK4099: PDB 'WinMain.pdb'
was not found with
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 5:17 AM Volker Hilsheimer
wrote:
> > On 23 Jul 2020, at 15:56, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.)
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm still trying to wrap my head around this concept, and starting a new
> thread to distinguish from the technical implementation discussion.
> >
>
On Thursday, 23 July 2020 15:10:23 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Strictly speaking, drop GCC 8 for Linux. For other OSes where Qt is not a
> system library it could remain.
Correcting myself again: drop GCC 8 and Clang 8 (and all previous versions)
for Linux and the open source BSDs with a Ports t
On Thursday, 23 July 2020 14:03:54 PDT Ville Voutilainen wrote:
> > I'd rather go to [[no_unique_address]] instead of this. The extension
> > doesn't compile in all cases (you can't have a Flexible Array Member
> > everywhere) and is going to produce warnings.
> >
> > Let's just drop GCC 8.
>
> D
On Thursday, 23 July 2020 08:33:39 PDT André Pönitz wrote:
> If Qt would bump major versions once a year, and take that as a chance to
> break BC, would that be a problem, if so, why?
Let's assume Qt remains strictly source compatible, not even by removing
deprecations. That means we can only do
On 2020-07-23 23:09, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 00:03, Ville Voutilainen
wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 23:59, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On Thursday, 23 July 2020 12:34:06 PDT Simon Hausmann wrote:
I think the primary environment where a transition and resulting BC
breakage
On Thursday, 23 July 2020 13:50:26 PDT Bernhard Lindner wrote:
> I thought of something like a simple, manually maintained ABI version. Sure,
> on the one hand this wouldn't prevent uninentional BC breaks. On the other
> hand, BC changes could be done intentionally and managed in a safe way
> (with
On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 00:03, Ville Voutilainen
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 23:59, Thiago Macieira
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, 23 July 2020 12:34:06 PDT Simon Hausmann wrote:
> > > I think the primary environment where a transition and resulting BC
> > > breakage would be annoying is the
On Thu, 23 Jul 2020 at 23:59, Thiago Macieira wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 23 July 2020 12:34:06 PDT Simon Hausmann wrote:
> > I think the primary environment where a transition and resulting BC
> > breakage would be annoying is the Linux system environment with gcc. This
> > is where Olivier’s solutio
On Thursday, 23 July 2020 12:34:06 PDT Simon Hausmann wrote:
> I think the primary environment where a transition and resulting BC
> breakage would be annoying is the Linux system environment with gcc. This
> is where Olivier’s solution is quite elegant IMO.
I'd rather go to [[no_unique_address]]
On Thursday, 23 July 2020 12:59:25 PDT Filippo Cucchetto wrote:
> Il giorno gio 23 lug 2020 alle ore 21:15 Volker Hilsheimer
>
> ha scritto:
> > But why would we calculate the volume if nobody cares about the volume? :)
>
> Sometimes you want to notify or take actions immediately:
> - notify the
> > Couldn't those subtle errors be replaced by some clear and understandable
> > error? Like some explicit binary compatibility check?
>
> Such a test does not exist, comprehensively. We can put a few common things
> in
> an ABI marker, like the size of QObject, the actual type qreal maps to,
Hi Brett,
Am 23.07.2020 um 15:56 schrieb Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.):
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this concept, and starting a new
thread to distinguish from the technical implementation discussion.
The two obvious cases:
* Immediate evaluation. This is the current signal-based hand
Il giorno gio 23 lug 2020 alle ore 21:15 Volker Hilsheimer
ha scritto:
> But why would we calculate the volume if nobody cares about the volume? :)
Sometimes you want to notify or take actions immediately:
- notify the new volume value through a websocket for being consumed
by javascript
- send
Olivier Goffart schrieb am Fr. 17. Juli 2020 um 19:12:
> On 17/07/20 19:00, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Friday, 17 July 2020 09:34:54 PDT Lars Knoll wrote:
> >>> I'll just post this and let you ponder the consequences of this choice
> for
> >>> Linux:
> >>> https://godbolt.org/z/nhex5x
> >>
> >
> On 23 Jul 2020, at 15:56, Stottlemyer, Brett (B.S.) wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm still trying to wrap my head around this concept, and starting a new
> thread to distinguish from the technical implementation discussion.
>
> The two obvious cases:
> * Immediate evaluation. This is the current sign
Hi Brett,
if I understood correctly what you wrote you're basically asking how
to handle the scenario of an observer of a QProperty (given that it
recomputes its value only if someone reads it).
By your example i would assume that basically you can achieve what you
want with a QTimer(0) that re/rea
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 10:24:21AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday, 22 July 2020 09:55:31 PDT André Pönitz wrote:
> > How often do we think people are actively taking advantage of Qt's BC
> > promise (and how often do we hold this promise, and how often is this
> > relevant as we do no
Hi,
I'm still trying to wrap my head around this concept, and starting a new thread
to distinguish from the technical implementation discussion.
The two obvious cases:
* Immediate evaluation. This is the current signal-based handling (ignoring
queued for the moment).
* Evaluate-on-Read (EoR).
19 matches
Mail list logo
