On Monday 30 May 2016 16:24:38 Jędrzej Nowacki wrote: > On Monday 30 of May 2016 10:19:38 Marc Mutz wrote: > > On Sunday 29 May 2016 18:05:07 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > > I've just pushed a feature[1] to moc that makes it process multiple > > > headers > > > at the same time, producing only one output file > > > > Separate compilation is not how I would recommend to use moc-generated > > files. I'd recommend to always include the moc file in the corresponding > > cpp file. That gives the compiler the whole picture and enables better > > optimisation[1] and error checking[2,3]. > > If moc has full picture it also can apply some nice optimizations, like for > example here https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/75151/.
This is orthogonal. Obviously, I have nothing against running moc only once per library/executable, and applying optimisations such as string and sub-string sharing across classes. I also have nothing against a single output file for the tables. On the contrary. I applaud such changes. But I don't want QObject subclass member functions compiled into separate TUs anymore, for the reasons cited. So this would meet everyones requirements: a single moc run on all headers (and cpps) of a library, generating one output file with one large data table, and one file per class (or file), to be included in the class' .cpp file. This would even preserve Q_PRIVATE_SLOT, leading to less churn (unless that transition is desireable for other reasons than "doesn't work with moc_combine"). Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz <marc.m...@kdab.com> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
