Re: [Development] Raising the minimum to C++20

On 2023-05-03, Thiago Macieira wrote: > 13, while Ubuntu 22.04 and Debian 11 (current stable) have GCC 11. Debian > will > probably release its next stable before Qt 6.7, though whether it'll still > upgrade from GCC 12 to 13 I don't know. When we released Qt 6.0, our minimum Debian 12 "Bookw

Re: [Development] Raising the minimum to C++20

Perhaps we should start by using C++20 by default if supported, and then later require it? It seems we are missing a step. Best regards Allan -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Raising the minimum to C++20

Hi Maurice, On 03.05.23 08:01, Maurice Kalinowski wrote: > Basically, the idea from our end has been to take a two-step approach by > first enabling every developer to use C++20 in their projects and potentially > add helpers/functionality where possible. Only at a later stage we can then > sta

Re: [Development] Raising the minimum to C++20

As Marc already mentioned, we are having troubles with users not being able to upgrade on various platforms. We even have customers who are not able to upgrade to C++17 yet due to supply chain issues. Basically, the idea from our end has been to take a two-step approach by first enabling every

Re: [Development] Raising the minimum to C++20

Hi Thiago, While I'd rather sooner than later see us switch to C++20, ever since 5.7, we have dropped supported compilers only after an LTS release (5.6, in that case). Since I agree the train for 6.6 has left the station, as Integrity (and possibly QNX?) don't have an official C++20 offering,

[Development] Meeting minutes from Qt Release Team meeting 02.05.2023

Qt 6.5 status * Branching from '6.5' to '6.5.1' done * Qt 6.5.1 release preparations ongoing * Target is to release Qt 6.5.1 Wed 10th May Qt 6.6 status * Only a month left to implement new features for Qt 6.6 * the whatsnew66.qdoc document here: https://code.qt.io/cgit/

[Development] Raising the minimum to C++20

C++23 is on the way, so maybe it's time for us to raise our minimum to the one version before that. Let's aim for Qt 6.7, because feature-freeze for 6.6 is within one month, and lets us warn our users this is coming. By this, I mean to: * modify our build system so Qt compiles with -std=c++20 or

[Development] Changes to QObject::connect and other functor-taking API implementations

Hi, What started as an attempt to provide a few building blocks for making it easier to build asynchronous APIs taking any kind of callable (like QTimer::singleShot or QHostInfo::lookupHost) [1] has turned into a bit of a longer journey to the core. [1] https://codereview.qt-project.org/c/qt/

Re: [Development] Template-meta-programming do's and don'ts

I think 'yes' is an easy answer. Having a convention that matches the is_same/is_same_v enable_if/enable_if_t paradigm could make some things easier, avoiding the need to wrap constexpr bool values in bool_constant when there is no non-'_v' version of the check yet. But someone also has to write so

[Development] Monthly CI maintenance break - May (Mon, May 8th 2023)

Hi, We’ll have our scheduled maintenance break on next Monday (8th of May). We’ll begin our work at 5:00 UTC and you can prepare for 6 hours of CI not working. -- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development

[Development] (To what extent) Should we start the API change review earlier ?

Volker Hilsheimer (2 May 2023 10:57) wrote: > With Qt 6.5 out for a while already, and roughly a month to go until > Qt 6.6 feature freeze and the start of the various activities that > lead up to the release, it’s perhaps not too early to review some of > the pain points we experienced with 6.5, a

Re: [Development] Header review process: follow-up on comments

Hi, while gerrit _didn't_ have support for it, that changed in 3.7. It needs to be manually enabled (https://www.gerritcodereview.com/3.7.html#mention-user-support), but maybe that would be a good way forward? Fabian On 02.05.23 11:00, Volker Hilsheimer via Development wrote: With Qt 6.5,

[Development] Header review process: follow-up on comments

With Qt 6.5, it’s been a struggle to get people to respond and follow-up to comments made during the header review process. Gerrit doesn’t really care about @user-style mentioning in comments, even though is seems that some people assume that it does. Creating JIRA tickets is the official way o

[Development] Template-meta-programming do's and don'ts

During header review we identified a few cases where e.g. using std::conjunction/disjunction wasn’t used, or not used optimally. Using suboptimal constructs can result in significant compile-time penalties. We generally don’t have a lot of guidelines for template-meta-programming. Should we hav

[Development] API style guide: scoped enum or not?

During the header review, but also in API discussions leading up to it, we had a few cases where it would have helped if we had clearer guidelines about when to use scoped enums, and when not. Scoped enums have some clear technical advantages (such as better type safety, thanks to no implicit c

[Development] Thread anchor: Discussion of header review improvements

Hi, With Qt 6.5 out for a while already, and roughly a month to go until Qt 6.6 feature freeze and the start of the various activities that lead up to the release, it’s perhaps not too early to review some of the pain points we experienced with 6.5, and discuss how we can improve. In particula