On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 09:08:50 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
> And maybe a fix for MSVC's inability to override the global operator new.
> See https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-63274.
Nope, that doesn't work either. Proof: https://godbolt.org/g/FM9ohw
Note how it calls the DLL:
On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 09:08:50 PDT Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 08:21:28 PDT Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 07:49:58AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > > Q_ALWAYS_INLINE, however, has no bearing in ABI. It's a purely
> > > optimisation
> >
On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 08:21:28 PDT Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 07:49:58AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Q_ALWAYS_INLINE, however, has no bearing in ABI. It's a purely
> > optimisation
> > feature and can be added or removed at will.
>
> would you bet on that?
On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 08:20:50 PDT Edward Welbourne wrote:
> > Q_REQUIRED_RESULT being moved to the beginning of the line was a very
> > restricted change. There was exactly one commit affecting about 20
> > functions, that's all.
>
> All the same, if it gets added to a function (rather
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 07:49:58AM -0700, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Q_ALWAYS_INLINE, however, has no bearing in ABI. It's a purely optimisation
> feature and can be added or removed at will.
>
would you bet on that? are you _sure_ it does not affect the emission of
out-of-line copies, on any
Thiago Macieira (19 September 2017 16:49)
> The problem with Q_DECL_NOTHROW is that it once added, it cannot be
> removed. There's also the choice: we choose to add it only to
> functions that (in addition to neevr throwing) are wide contract. So
> we should see it and review that kind of change.
On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 03:16:32 PDT Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> > Why? Is hash randomization really important in your case?
>
> Actually, you can read value of QT_HASH_SEED from /dev/urandom, restoring
> previous behavior exactly.
Read what I wrote in my emails and in the Python bug
On Tuesday, 19 September 2017 03:02:16 PDT Edward Welbourne wrote:
> OK, but I infer there's no harm in including them in the list of tokens
> the script already ignores - explicit, Q_ALWAYS_INLINE, Q_DECL_NOTHROW
> before the new additions. How about Q_REQUIRED_RESULT ?
The problem with
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Edward Welbourne
> wrote:
>> We have a draft policy for lambdas at [0], in a section that begins with
>>
>> Note: This section is not an accepted convention yet.
>> This section serves as baseline for
On 19.09.2017 13:16, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
19.09.2017, 13:14, "Konstantin Tokarev" :
14.09.2017, 10:22, "Sami Nurmenniemi" :
Hi,
Commit 120ecc976fc3d5504d234702f68c2ad3898b77a4 changes default behavior of
QRandomGenerator to use getentropy
19.09.2017, 13:14, "Konstantin Tokarev" :
> 14.09.2017, 10:22, "Sami Nurmenniemi" :
>> Hi,
>>
>> Commit 120ecc976fc3d5504d234702f68c2ad3898b77a4 changes default behavior of
>> QRandomGenerator to use getentropy instead of /dev/urandom. This causes
14.09.2017, 10:22, "Sami Nurmenniemi" :
> Hi,
>
> Commit 120ecc976fc3d5504d234702f68c2ad3898b77a4 changes default behavior of
> QRandomGenerator to use getentropy instead of /dev/urandom. This causes
> problems for device boot times when using QRandomGenerator in the
On quarta-feira, 13 de setembro de 2017 01:54:12 PDT Edward Welbourne wrote:
>> [...] Should Q_DECL_CONST_FUNCTION
>> changes be ignored ? Q_NORETURN ? They currently aren't.
Thiago Macieira (13 September 2017 15:51)
> Those two are optimisations and could safely be ignored, but they
> don't
Hi all,
We have now Qt 5.6.3 packages available via online installer ( under 'preview'
node still)
Target is to get Qt 5.6.3 release out still during this week so please inform
us immediately if there seems to be something new broken in these packages. And
please fill Qt 5.6.3 known issues
14 matches
Mail list logo