On Monday 17 October 2011 11:01:50 ext Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Monday, 17 de October de 2011 10:46:03 André Pönitz wrote: > > Re "hash": Can't the hash be put at ((char*)data)[-4] (plus the necessary > > adjustments)? > > Yes, and it can also be stored past the end of the data and a suitable bit > set > in the flags. > > In fact, that's not a bad idea: storing an extra header *past* the end of the > data. It wouldn't affect the alignment constraints.
Why "past"? Don't we typically get memory allocated at 16*n+8, and would like to use 16*m (with m = n+1 perhaps) instead? Adjusting it would leave us with a "natural" gap of 8 bytes in front of the "main" data, 4 of which could be used for the hash. Actually, with 4 more left, couldn't even the "alloc" field could go there? It's rarely accessed, and would take some pressure off the main structure. > > Re "QList-and-QVector" merge: I'd really like to see reference counting > > _removed_ from QVector. We do need _one_ easy-to-use-no-overhead > > container. That probably make that merge harder.... > > João had some ideas on how to do this. When we talked, he basically wanted > the > same API, on the same QVectorData header, but without using the reference > counter field. If that works, it should fit the bill, too. Andre' _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
