On quarta-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2013 22.54.45, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > factors. Namely:
> > - wakeUp() is only called from qcoreapplication.cpp with the event queue
> >
> >mutex locked
>
> wakeUp is called from many places, and without the lock.
It's called from:
- QCoreApplication:
On Wednesday 06 February 2013 12:38:12 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On quarta-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2013 21.13.36, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> > That said, it is probably a good idea not to call select at all when it is
> > not needed. But with that patch, you also make calls to write even when
> > i
On quarta-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2013 21.13.36, Olivier Goffart wrote:
> That said, it is probably a good idea not to call select at all when it is
> not needed. But with that patch, you also make calls to write even when
> it is not needed, while before there was only call to write.
The atomi
About https://codereview.qt-project.org/46798
On Wednesday 06 February 2013 11:51:17 BogDan wrote:
> I think I understood how the event loop is supposed to work, sadly, at least
> on android, it doesn't work as it should. Is very simple to check it, just
> revert that patch and test an UI applicat
On quarta-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2013 11.51.17, BogDan wrote:
> I think I understood how the event loop is supposed to work, sadly, at least
> on android, it doesn't work as it should. Is very simple to check it, just
> revert that patch and test an UI application that doesn't have any active
> t
>> On Android all events are coming from another thread, and some time a few
>> events are not delivered by the event loop. It happens because if an event
>> is added to the event loop when the event loop just started to
>> process/deliver the events this event is not sent because the event
On quarta-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2013 10.23.25, BogDan wrote:
> On Android all events are coming from another thread, and some time a few
> events are not delivered by the event loop. It happens because if an event
> is added to the event loop when the event loop just started to
> process/delive
[...]
>> >> M src/corelib/kernel/qeventdispatcher_unix.cpp
>> >> M src/corelib/kernel/qeventdispatcher_unix_p.h
>> >
>> > This one needs a very good explanation.
>>
>> Would you mind discussing this with Bogdan on
>>
>> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#change,46798
>>
>
On quarta-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2013 11.07.44, Eskil Abrahamsen Blomfeldt
wrote:
> >> A lib/rules.xml
> >
> > I'd rather you found a better place for this file.
>
> I was planning on putting it into src/android and having it deployed
> into lib/rules.xml when you build for Android.
>
>
On quarta-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2013 16.45.15, Eskil Abrahamsen Blomfeldt
wrote:
> On 02/06/2013 04:43 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Note: a way out is to define *both*.
>
> This sounds like a logical compromise to me. We can define the
> Q_OS_LINUX_ANDROID and document that it's to avoid bre
On 02/06/2013 04:43 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Note: a way out is to define *both*.
This sounds like a logical compromise to me. We can define the
Q_OS_LINUX_ANDROID and document that it's to avoid breaking existing
code, and we can use Q_OS_ANDROID internally in Qt.
-- Eskil
___
On quarta-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2013 00.40.45, BogDan wrote:
> When, where, who ?
>
> I changed that macro because Google[1] and GCC[2] consider that the name of
> the O.S. is ANDROID not LINUX-ANDROID and they define a preprocessor macro
> as __ANDROID__ (not __LINUX_ANDROID__)! Because Q_OS
Hi,
On Wednesday 06 February 2013 13:05:33 Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
> On Wednesday 6 February 2013 09:41:46 Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
> > On Wednesday 6 February 2013 09:00:41 Thomas McGuire wrote:
> > > A workaround would be to squash all commits of the branch together into
> > > a single patch and th
On Wednesday 6 February 2013 09:41:46 Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
> On Wednesday 6 February 2013 09:00:41 Thomas McGuire wrote:
> > A workaround would be to squash all commits of the branch together into a
> > single patch and then upload that to Gerrit for review. Now, actually
> > pushing the single
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:16:26PM -0800, BogDan wrote:
> Android has almost none of the previous libraries and utilities.
>
> Even distrowatch consider android a different O.S.
> http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=links#otheros
>
it basically boils down to what is more likely to be used
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 09:41:46AM +0100, Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
> On Wednesday 6 February 2013 09:00:41 Thomas McGuire wrote:
> > A workaround would be to squash all commits of the branch together into a
> > single patch and then upload that to Gerrit for review. Now, actually
> > pushing the si
Thanks for the comments. I'll convert them all into tasks or add them as
comments in Gerrit if the patches in question are already in there.
On 02/06/2013 03:04 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> -2 on the -openssl-source option. It's not used anywhere.
Yes, that's a left-over. I'll remove it.
>>
On Wednesday 6 February 2013 09:00:41 Thomas McGuire wrote:
> A workaround would be to squash all commits of the branch together into a
> single patch and then upload that to Gerrit for review. Now, actually
> pushing the single patch would lose history, so we'd instead manually do a
> proper mer
[...]
>> M src/corelib/codecs/qtextcodec.cpp
>> M src/corelib/codecs/qtextcodec_p.h
>
> This has been discussed before. Please leave the macro called
> Q_OS_LINUX_ANDROID.
>
When, where, who ?
I changed that macro because Google[1] and GCC[2] consider that the name of
the O.S. i
Hi,
On Tuesday 05 February 2013 14:22:47 Thomas McGuire wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 February 2013 11:33:29 Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
> > One of the major features for Qt 5.1 is Android support. We have been
> > doing the work in a feature branch, and are now getting ready to
> > integrate to the dev bran
On terça-feira, 5 de fevereiro de 2013 11.33.29, Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
> M config.tests/qpa/linuxfb/linuxfb.cpp
> M config.tests/unix/arch.test
+2 up to here.
> M config.tests/unix/compile.test
This one has superfluous changes. It sets a QMAKE variable that is not used
anywher
I agreed with Simon's initial pragmatic heads up which was that:
linux* blocks in existing qmake profile files would probably want be
the primary code path you would want to be followed in/under Android,
in the initial compilation/porting to Android. It wasn't an attempt at
bike shedding.
The Qt
[snip]
According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)
"Android is a Linux-based operating system ..."
but on the same page says:
"Android does not have a native X Window System by default nor does it support
the full set of standard GNU libraries, and this makes it difficult
>
>
> 05.02.2013, 16:10, "Eskil Abrahamsen Blomfeldt"
> :
>> Technically I don't think Android is considered a Linux-distribution.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution
>
> "A Linux distribution ... is a member of the family of Unix-like operating
> systems built on top of the
05.02.2013, 16:10, "Eskil Abrahamsen Blomfeldt"
:
> Technically I don't think Android is considered a Linux-distribution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution
"A Linux distribution ... is a member of the family of Unix-like operating
systems built on top of the Linux kernel."
Andr
On terça-feira, 5 de fevereiro de 2013 13.10.21, Eskil Abrahamsen Blomfeldt
wrote:
> Technically I don't think Android is considered a Linux-distribution.
> Wouldn't this be similar to renaming the OSX mkspec to "macx-g++-darwin"?
darwin-g++-aqua
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
On 02/06/2013 04:07 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Jake Thomas Petroules
mailto:jake.petrou...@petroules.com>>
wrote:
Surely you meant darwin-g++-macx. :)
I don't think the Android mkspec warrants having Linux in it
simply because it's such a radically diff
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Jake Thomas Petroules <
jake.petrou...@petroules.com> wrote:
> Surely you meant darwin-g++-macx. :)
>
> I don't think the Android mkspec warrants having Linux in it simply
> because it's such a radically different system in many ways. Custom C++
> library, different
Surely you meant darwin-g++-macx. :)
I don't think the Android mkspec warrants having Linux in it simply because
it's such a radically different system in many ways. Custom C++ library,
different executable format, custom packaging tools, custom UI stack, the fact
that native apps can't even be
[..]
> Simply put: Consistency. We do have linux-g++-maemo, linux-g++, linux-arm-
> gnueabi-g++
>
> They're all flavours of Linux, following the os-compiler/variant pattern.
> There's no guarantee about what system libraries are in there. In that sense
> I
> feel Android is a variant of Linux.
On 2/5/13 1:21 PM, "BogDan" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>[...]
>> - Nokia is also mentioned along with names of former employees in the
>>json style
>
>> parser under widgets/styles. Btw, I am generally wondering about it,
>>it seems
>> to add a new Json parser. Could it be replaced by the Json classes of
On 02/05/2013 02:15 PM, David Faure wrote:
> .
> Looking at the patch with git diff origin/dev...origin/wip/android
> [not very convenient for commenting on code changes...]
>
> I see changes that are unrelated to android:
I've tried to separate the non-android-specific changes we inherited
from
On Tuesday 05 February 2013 11:33:29 Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
> One of the major features for Qt 5.1 is Android support. We have been
> doing the work in a feature branch, and are now getting ready to
> integrate to the dev branch. To beat the rush of integrations before
> feature freeze, we aim to
On Tuesday 05 February 2013 11:33:29 Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
> To see the changes, check out (or diff against) the
> "wip/android" branch.
Looking at the patch with git diff origin/dev...origin/wip/android
[not very convenient for commenting on code changes...]
I see changes that are unrelated to
Hi,
On Tuesday 05 February 2013 11:33:29 Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
> One of the major features for Qt 5.1 is Android support. We have been
> doing the work in a feature branch, and are now getting ready to
> integrate to the dev branch. To beat the rush of integrations before
> feature freeze, we ai
On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 04:17:42 AM BogDan wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 02:58:47 AM BogDan wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> > On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:33:29 AM Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
> >> > [...]
> >> >
> >> >> mkspecs/android-g++/qmake.conf
> >> >>
> >> > One suggesti
On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 01:10:21 PM Eskil Abrahamsen Blomfeldt wrote:
> On 02/05/2013 12:49 PM, Friedemann Kleint wrote:
> > - Nokia is also mentioned along with names of former employees in the
> > json style parser under widgets/styles. Btw, I am generally wondering
> > about it, it seems
On 02/05/2013 01:21 PM, BogDan wrote:
> last time when I tried Json classes of QtCore were much slower
> than the "new" json parser. Because every application that uses native
> look and feel must parse a json file every time when it starts, the
> parsing speed is a very important factor. Chee
Hi,
[...]
> - Nokia is also mentioned along with names of former employees in the json
> style
> parser under widgets/styles. Btw, I am generally wondering about it, it
> seems
> to add a new Json parser. Could it be replaced by the Json classes of QtCore?
>
last time when I tried Json cl
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:58 AM, BogDan wrote:
> Linux is only the kernel,
Sure, but that is what "linux" refers to, too.
> which can be changed if Google finds a better alternative,
> and is not required to build an Android application.
>
I agree with Simon's longer explanation. I think if
> On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 02:58:47 AM BogDan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> > On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:33:29 AM Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> mkspecs/android-g++/qmake.conf
>> >
>> > One suggestion regarding the name of the mkspec:
>> >
>> > It's not unusual to have
On 02/05/2013 12:49 PM, Friedemann Kleint wrote:
> - Nokia is also mentioned along with names of former employees in the
> json style parser under widgets/styles. Btw, I am generally wondering
> about it, it seems to add a new Json parser. Could it be replaced by
> the Json classes of QtCore?
Hi,
quickly trying it out, I found:
- qplatformdefs.h of Android has a Nokia License of 2009 - surely that
was not intended?
- Nokia is also mentioned along with names of former employees in the
json style parser under widgets/styles. Btw, I am generally wondering
about it, it seems to a
On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 02:58:47 AM BogDan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:33:29 AM Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> mkspecs/android-g++/qmake.conf
> >
> > One suggestion regarding the name of the mkspec:
> >
> > It's not unusual to have linux* masks in .pro
Hi,
>
> On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:33:29 AM Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
> [...]
>> mkspecs/android-g++/qmake.conf
>
> One suggestion regarding the name of the mkspec:
>
> It's not unusual to have linux* masks in .pro files (at least not in WebKit
> ;-)
>
> Would it perhaps make sense to ren
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:33:29 AM Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
> [...]
> > mkspecs/android-g++/qmake.conf
>
> One suggestion regarding the name of the mkspec:
>
> It's not unusual to have linux* masks in .pro files (at least not in
> WebKi
On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 11:33:29 AM Paul Olav Tvete wrote:
[...]
> mkspecs/android-g++/qmake.conf
One suggestion regarding the name of the mkspec:
It's not unusual to have linux* masks in .pro files (at least not in WebKit ;-)
Would it perhaps make sense to rename the mkspec to linux-andro
One of the major features for Qt 5.1 is Android support. We have been doing
the work in a feature branch, and are now getting ready to integrate to the
dev branch. To beat the rush of integrations before feature freeze, we aim to
start the integration in two weeks time.
Most of the changes are
48 matches
Mail list logo
