Re: [Development] Are we free of code that checks this isn't null?

On sábado, 5 de março de 2016 02:17:59 PST Marc Mutz wrote: > On Saturday 05 March 2016 00:21:38 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On sexta-feira, 4 de março de 2016 23:27:49 PST Marc Mutz wrote: > > > Do you also have a fix for this one: > > >

Re: [Development] Are we free of code that checks this isn't null?

On Saturday 05 March 2016 00:21:38 Thiago Macieira wrote: > On sexta-feira, 4 de março de 2016 23:27:49 PST Marc Mutz wrote: > > Do you also have a fix for this one: > > ../../include/QtCore/../../../../qt5/qtbase/src/corelib/kernel/qobjectd > > efs > > > > .h:175:108: error: ‘visibility’

Re: [Development] Are we free of code that checks this isn't null?

On sexta-feira, 4 de março de 2016 23:27:49 PST Marc Mutz wrote: > Do you also have a fix for this one: > > ../../include/QtCore/../../../../qt5/qtbase/src/corelib/kernel/qobjectdefs > .h:175:108: error: ‘visibility’ attribute ignored [-Werror=attributes] >Q_DECL_HIDDEN_STATIC_METACALL

Re: [Development] Are we free of code that checks this isn't null?

On Friday 04 March 2016 08:59:59 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > /me upgrades to GCC 6. > > I might still have a patch or two that aren't merged that fix GCC 6 > warnings. But when you compile with it, can you make sure it doesn't > print any misleading-identation warnings? There were a couple of

Re: [Development] Dropping qtserialbus from Qt 5.6 -- it doesn't compile in C++98

On sexta-feira, 4 de março de 2016 10:03:22 PST Blasche Alexander wrote: > >Because you also need to reject some older Clang versions. Did you add the > >check for them too? > > clang 3.4 is rejected by requires(c++11) already. It shouldn't be. Clang 3.4 is C++11-feature-complete. I was

Re: [Development] debug symbols for official Qt releases

2016-03-04 14:36 GMT+01:00 Ulf Hermann : > Yes, of course we can, but it requires more work to do, so it is better to >> evaluate the size first :-) >> > > I can tell you right away that debug symbols are insanely large. Just > create a debug build of Qt and notice

Re: [Development] debug symbols for official Qt releases

Yes, of course we can, but it requires more work to do, so it is better to evaluate the size first :-) I can tell you right away that debug symbols are insanely large. Just create a debug build of Qt and notice that it's gigabytes in size. Don't try to fit that into our current packages,

Re: [Development] templated QObjects [was: Re: We are planning to upgrade qdoc to use clang for parsing C++]

On Monday 29 of February 2016 08:38:30 Thiago Macieira wrote: > On segunda-feira, 29 de fevereiro de 2016 10:09:51 PST Jędrzej Nowacki wrote: > > On Friday 26 of February 2016 15:56:08 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > > I.e. what problems would we get from having to install the > > > > moc files? > >

Re: [Development] debug symbols for official Qt releases

On Friday 04 of March 2016 13:22:05 Ulf Hermann wrote: > > The option is being evaluated. The main problem is that it seems that the > > installer size grows 2x with force-debug-info enabled, we need to confirm > > that it is not the case. > > You can add the debug symbols as optional separate

[Development] Qt 5.7 alpha packages available

Hi all, We have Qt 5.7 Alpha src packages available here: http://download.qt.io/snapshots/qt/5.7/5.7.0-alpha/latest_src/ Please check the packages to see if those are ok for Alpha purposes (compilation seems to work,

Re: [Development] debug symbols for official Qt releases

The option is being evaluated. The main problem is that it seems that the installer size grows 2x with force-debug-info enabled, we need to confirm that it is not the case. You can add the debug symbols as optional separate packages. People who need them can install them then, and we don't

Re: [Development] debug symbols for official Qt releases

On Wednesday 02 of March 2016 09:00:35 Gunnar Roth wrote: > >On 2016-03-01, Milian Wolff wrote: > >> b) Apparently there are never any debug symbols shipped for the release > >> build fo Qt. Having debug symbols even for a release build is crucial > >> for a good profiling

Re: [Development] ci timeouts

On Tuesday 01 of March 2016 14:15:30 Tim Blechmann wrote: > hi all, > > it seems that i cannot integrate changes into 5.6 anymore: > > http://testresults.qt.io/coin/integration/qt/qtbase/tasks/1456811813.thrif > > t_bin > seems that i'm always hitting a timeout somewhere ... is this a known >

Re: [Development] Dropping qtserialbus from Qt 5.6 -- it doesn't compile in C++98

>Because you also need to reject some older Clang versions. Did you add the >check for them too? clang 3.4 is rejected by requires(c++11) already. >Please think of Clang on Linux and FreeBSD, plus the older XCode that we still >support on OS X. This is LTS and the last version before we require

Re: [Development] Qt 5.6.0-rc build issues on CentOS 6.7 x86_64 with g++

Hello again The packages built on copr repository IS 5.6.0rc and is the reference that we use to upstream in Fedora when reach final. This is the proper repository: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/kdesig/Qt5/ This is the repository to add on Yum

Re: [Development] Are we free of code that checks this isn't null?

Am Donnerstag, 3. März 2016, 23:59:59 CET schrieb Thiago Macieira: > On sexta-feira, 4 de março de 2016 09:58:53 PST Marc Mutz wrote: > > On Friday 04 March 2016 07:52:15 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > Found in GCC 6's changelog (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/changes.html): > > > > Value range

Re: [Development] Qt 5.6.0-rc build issues on CentOS 6.7 x86_64 with g++

>>Workaround: do not use the convenience qt-everywhere-* tarball. Build each >>module independently. >> >>Ossi: have there been changes to rpath or rpath-link handling recently? We >>need to bring it back. There is some fixes for src packages coming in after RC, see

Re: [Development] Qt 5.6.0-rc build issues on CentOS 6.7 x86_64 with g++

Dear Thiago, please don't take it as an offense. I just assume that I am for sure not the only one or a group of less coders that still need to support a not very old CentOS 6. All I want to do here is to give my input, to improve the code base to also work still fine with a CentOS 6.

Re: [Development] Are we free of code that checks this isn't null?

On 04/03/16 08:59, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira" wrote: >On sexta-feira, 4 de março de 2016 09:58:53 PST Marc Mutz wrote: >> On Friday 04 March 2016 07:52:15 Thiago Macieira

Re: [Development] Qt 5.6.0-rc build issues on CentOS 6.7 x86_64 with g++

On sexta-feira, 4 de março de 2016 07:43:12 PST Walter Stefan wrote: > Dear Thiago, > > It seems to me that 5.6.0 is far from ready to be released. Actually, no, it's working well for the common scenario. You're the one with the old distro that has an old compiler and lacks Gold. Most people

Re: [Development] Are we free of code that checks this isn't null?

On sexta-feira, 4 de março de 2016 09:58:53 PST Marc Mutz wrote: > On Friday 04 March 2016 07:52:15 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > Found in GCC 6's changelog (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/changes.html): > > > Value range propagation now assumes that the this pointer of C++ member > > > functions is