(Accidentally sent previous email.)
To conclude my code snippet:
// ...
auto step1Future = QtConcurrent::map(tiles, processTile):
step1Watcher.setFuture(step1Future);
// the charade with "internal" future is needed to get the progress from the
second stage.
// I think there's no simpler way cu
Hi,
I am not 100% certain what reduction does in QtConcurrent, but guessing this is
generally not what you need (there's no "convert N to 1", but "convert N to N").
Also, is QtConcurrent's reduction concurrent? The docs [1] state that it is
not, so you are likely to get a sequential second pass
Not knowing if a partial value makes any sense to your system.
Qt::Concurrent::mappedReduced might make more sense, if its purely a speedup
you are looking for, and not a "keep the GUI alive during it" possibly
blockingMappedReduced.
If you need the gui, setting up a qfuturewatcher on the resu
Ahh that does fill in a bunch of holes 😊
I would definitely scrap using QSharedPointer as well as QObject, and instead
monitoring of the QObject, montor the QFuture that is returned from your map
call.
Scott
-Original Message-
From: Interest On Behalf Of Murphy, Sean
Sent: Monday, Jan
Thanks for the reply, Scott. My responses below:
> Couple things I would try.
>
> First, preallocate the size of the vector, or use a list if you don't need
> random access into it.Â
I had attempted this before my original post. My sequence of attempts before I
posted went
like this:
1. St
It does not make sense to me to have allocation/population of 60k instances of
Tile + QPoint into a QVector taking 5 seconds. It took 5 ms on my computer…
Having said that , if allocation and assignment are your bottleneck , just use
placement new operator with a large block of memory or just pu
Alexander,
Thanks for your reply.
In the mean time I have discovered that I had to change ANDROID_NDK_PLATFORM
env var to android-23. By default it was set to android-21.
Best regards,
Nuno
> On 25 Jan 2022, at 22:50, Alexander Dyagilev wrote:
>
> Sorry, forgot to say. As far as I know, the
Hello,
What Scott suggests should help a lot.
Using a slightly different approach, if you know how many tiles you need, say
60k, isn't it enough to figure out the tile position already?
Given an index 0 <= i < 60k, you should be able to map it to a 2-dimensional
coordinates if you know how many
