In that case they cannot be overwritten without a recompile. Which brings me back to my original comment from yesterday (to which no one replied):
How is that different from linking a custom implementation of operator new/operator delete and malloc/free into Qt? These are embedded use-cases anyway, so you wouldn't be using a stock Qt binary. Implementing the above is well-documented, and in fact both C++11 and C++14 have improved the ways in which the new/delete operators can be overridden. Just put your implementation in a static lib and pass it to the configure script as an additional library. On Linux you can also inject such a library using LD_PRELOAD, most operating systems have a similar mechanism. Unlike changing a header, that doesn't require a recompile of Qt. --Louai > -----Original Message----- > From: development-bounces+louai.al-khanji=theqtcompany.com@qt- > project.org [mailto:development-bounces+louai.al- > khanji=theqtcompany....@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Koehne Kai > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 12:57 PM > To: Robin Burchell; development@qt-project.org > Subject: Re: [Development] QtCore missing check for memory allocation > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: development-bounces+kai.koehne=theqtcompany.com@qt- > > project.org [mailto:development- > > bounces+kai.koehne=theqtcompany....@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of > > Robin Burchell > > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 11:47 AM > > To: development@qt-project.org > > Subject: Re: [Development] QtCore missing check for memory allocation > > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen > > <oswald.buddenha...@theqtcompany.com> wrote: > > >> The argument is that it implies runtime overhead. See Robin's email > > >> for numbers. This is asking for making the code slower on the very > > >> devices where it needs to run faster. > > >> > > > i don't trust this number. i don't know how qMalloc was implemented, > > > but there is no way a simple forwarding wrapper would add 10% > overhead > > > to malloc (esp. in an optimized build). > > > modern processors even have a specific optimization for call > > > forwarding (or whatever it's called properly). > > qmalloc and friends where implemented in qmalloc.cpp. That is, they can't be > inlined, and every call to it from another library will be a cross-library > one. > > A inlined, header-only wrapper should get away with this. > > Regards > > Kai > > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
