On terça-feira, 30 de abril de 2013 01.01.36, Milian Wolff wrote:
> Interestingly I can't find a case cases don't seem to be using
> QSharedDataPointer, or am I missing something?
Right. None of them use QSharedDataPointer.
You can find uses of that in these changes I uploaded during the weekend
On Monday 29 April 2013 15:16:29 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On segunda-feira, 29 de abril de 2013 21.52.37, Milian Wolff wrote:
> > I.e.: In the ctors that construct an "empty" object do not call "new
> > Private" but instead (re-)use a static shared empty object created on the
> > stack - see shared
On segunda-feira, 29 de abril de 2013 21.52.37, Milian Wolff wrote:
> I.e.: In the ctors that construct an "empty" object do not call "new
> Private" but instead (re-)use a static shared empty object created on the
> stack - see shared_empty and shared_null in qstring.{cpp,h}.
You probably did not
On 2013-04-29, Milian Wolff wrote:
> I do wonder though why QString has both, a shared_empty and a shared_null
> object. A single one should suffice for most objects, no?
I'm pretty sure this is because QString can be empty and not null.
e.g. the difference between QString() the empty string.
Hey guys!
On the PIM mailing list was recently a post about excessive memory consumption
in a data structure which stores multiple shared data objects
(KABC::Addressee).
Looking at it, I noticed that all the shared data objects always allocate
their private data, even if it is potentially empt
