Re: [Interest] Qt 5 LTO build on OS X 10.9 (and earlier)

2015-09-12 Thread Guido Seifert
> > Possible. But that would be comparable to the idea 640Kb is RAM enough ;) HE NEVER SAID THIS... I was present, when he did not say it. :-D Guido ___ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/intere

Re: [Interest] Qt 5 LTO build on OS X 10.9 (and earlier)

2015-09-12 Thread René J . V . Bertin
Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Saturday 12 September 2015 15:13:35 René J. V. Bertin wrote: > It's possible they think "no one will debug LTO code" and haven't implemented > the feature. Possible. But that would be comparable to the idea 640Kb is RAM enough ;) and I guess they too would like to se

Re: [Interest] Qt 5 LTO build on OS X 10.9 (and earlier)

2015-09-12 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Saturday 12 September 2015 15:13:35 René J. V. Bertin wrote: > Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Because we're talking about LTCG, which implies the compiler is run at the > > linking stage. > > In any case it (clang) doesn't show up in the process list. Also, from what > I understand clang stores som

Re: [Interest] Qt 5.5.x

2015-09-12 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Saturday 12 September 2015 10:19:57 Till Oliver Knoll wrote: > IIRC they did have (slightly) different names before that Before Trolltech was called Trolltech[*], it was called Troll Tech. Before that, for a couple of days, it was named Quasar Technologies, which was the initial name. As yo

Re: [Interest] Qt 5 LTO build on OS X 10.9 (and earlier)

2015-09-12 Thread René J . V . Bertin
Thiago Macieira wrote: > Because we're talking about LTCG, which implies the compiler is run at the > linking stage. In any case it (clang) doesn't show up in the process list. Also, from what I understand clang stores some intermediate LLVM byte-code representation (probably the same language-

Re: [Interest] Qt 5 LTO build on OS X 10.9 (and earlier)

2015-09-12 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Saturday 12 September 2015 00:19:27 René J. V. Bertin wrote: > > I don't see any reason why the compiler would get lost. > > And I have no idea why you drag the compiler into this :) Because we're talking about LTCG, which implies the compiler is run at the linking stage. > My hunch is that

Re: [Interest] Qt 5.5.x

2015-09-12 Thread Till Oliver Knoll
> Am 12.09.2015 um 10:31 schrieb Samuel Gaist : > > > Because the d pointer is the equivalent of the smile of the Cheshire Cat, the > only visible part: d => D Ah, now it makes /completely/ sense to me! D -> smile... clever :) Learnt something new about C++ today! ;) Thanks, Oliver _

Re: [Interest] Qt 5.5.x

2015-09-12 Thread Samuel Gaist
> On 12 sept. 2015, at 10:19, Till Oliver Knoll > wrote: > > >> Am 11.09.2015 um 19:59 schrieb Matthew Woehlke : >> >>> On 2015-09-11 13:41, Till Oliver Knoll wrote: >>> You can further reduce the "dependency tree" of your sources by >>> making use of the private "d-pointer" pattern (there i

[Interest] [OT] Re: Qt 5.5.x

2015-09-12 Thread Till Oliver Knoll
> Am 12.09.2015 um 10:19 schrieb Till Oliver Knoll > : > > >> Am 11.09.2015 um 19:59 schrieb Matthew Woehlke : >> >>> On 2015-09-11 13:41, Till Oliver Knoll wrote: >>> You can further reduce the "dependency tree" of your sources by >>> making use of the private "d-pointer" pattern (there is

Re: [Interest] Qt 5.5.x

2015-09-12 Thread Till Oliver Knoll
> Am 11.09.2015 um 19:59 schrieb Matthew Woehlke : > >> On 2015-09-11 13:41, Till Oliver Knoll wrote: >> You can further reduce the "dependency tree" of your sources by >> making use of the private "d-pointer" pattern (there is a name for >> it which currently escapes me) > > PIMPL? ;-) > > ht