On Aug 26, 2012, at 12:26 PM, ext Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote:
> On domingo, 26 de agosto de 2012 11.10.10, Olivier Goffart wrote: >> I was in vacation last week without proper internet access. >> Many of the changes already had a +2 from me before, but it went away as you >> rebased or refreshed the changes. This show a problem with the gerrit tool >> and a major annoyance of the "topics" since it keeps you from already >> merging the stand alone patches that have already been approved. > > The earlier ones that had +2 kept them. It's only the later ones that lost > the > +2 due to rebasing, because Gerrit doesn't know whether the change depended > on > something from the previous version. > > Even though it told me "no files changed, just rebased" when I pushed. > >> Regarding the 2 patches which I have not approved: I personally think they >> are not giving anything usefull, just adding complexity. >> I think QBasicMutex and QMutex should be the same, only one is POD. And am >> not in favor of all the patches that goes against that. But I realize that >> argument is not enough to veto or even put -1. I don't quite get why they have to be the same, and actually don't like that QMutex inherits QBasicMutex, esp given that the basic mutex is internal. I don't see why they can't be separate classes that share quite a bit of the implementation behind the scenes. This should not make the design any more complex then it is now, but give us more flexibility. Cheers, Lars > > The problem is that QBasicMutex being POD -- actually, being zero initialised > -- is imposing constraints in how we can optimise the much more used QMutex. > QMutex construction happens once, so it makes sense to keep the lock & timing > structure, instead of having to find it from the freelist on every contended > lock and unlock. > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center > Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027 > Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
