Maybe even deprecate startTimer and killTimer? -1
I like this low level insight, which gives me a higher sense of control about what's going on. Philippe On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 08:06:35 +0000 Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io> wrote: >> On 30 Aug 2017, at 09:30, Olivier Goffart <oliv...@woboq.com> wrote: >> >> Am Dienstag, 29. August 2017, 17:30:56 CEST schrieb Thiago Macieira: >> On Tuesday, 29 August 2017 01:10:53 PDT René J.V. Bertin wrote: >>> Which we just rediscovered :) Funny though, apparently 1 misdirected >>>> startTimer() call can turn any application in a CPU hog that burns cycles >>>> without ever doing anything. Wouldn't it be safer for >>>> QObject::timerEvent() >>>> to kill any timer that triggers it, possibly even do an abort if it can do >>>> some kind of runtime debug mode detection? At least then it's set to a 0 >>>> (zero) interval? Sure. Please tell that to Eirik and Håvard back in the early 90s when they're designing Qt. http://doc.qt.io/archives/2.3/qobject.html#4c6b67 (Qt 1 docs not online) Unfortunately, we can't change anymore. We can change the documentation and recommend against using killTimer and startTimer. QBasicTimer should be used instead. This would have probably avoided the problem in this case (as one would have called stop instead of m_updateTimer = 0). And in general is easier to use for 0 overhead. +1. Maybe even deprecate startTimer and killTimer? Cheers, Lars
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development