Re: [Development] Clazy results for Qt codebase

> On Oct 18, 2017, at 17:51, Sergio Martins wrote: > > On 2017-10-11 08:17, Eike Ziller wrote: >>> On 10. Oct 2017, at 15:41, Sergio Martins wrote: >>> Oops, here's the non-internal URL: >>> https://docs.kdab.com/analysis/qt5/clazy.html >>>

Re: [Development] Clazy results for Qt codebase

On 2017-10-11 08:17, Eike Ziller wrote: On 10. Oct 2017, at 15:41, Sergio Martins wrote: Oops, here's the non-internal URL: https://docs.kdab.com/analysis/qt5/clazy.html Thanks Mitch I’d be interested in seeing results for Qt Creator too :) Hi Eike, Here you go:

[Development] Whether the Qt Creator Application Manager Plugin is or will be open sourced

Hi, As the Boot2Qt and Qt Application Manager projects both were open sourced, when building Boot2Qt‘s package, I found this document about Qt Creator Application Manager Plugin But I can't find the plugin in Qt Creator, I think this

Re: [Development] Qt with sanitizers

18.10.2017, 12:03, "Jedrzej Nowacki" : > Hi, > >   I made an experiment to see if we should enable sanitizers in CI, by > default. Essentially, how much we would slow down integrations and what would > be the tests pass rate. Short answer is that, currently, it is not an

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

> On 18. Oct 2017, at 08:46, Jeandet Alexis > wrote: > > Le mardi 17 octobre 2017 à 17:45 +0200, Giuseppe D'Angelo a écrit : >> I'm just going to ignore the bikeshedding on implementation details, and >> go back to the main point of the thread, which was right

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 08:46:34 +0200 Jeandet Alexis wrote: > Le mardi 17 octobre 2017 à 17:45 +0200, Giuseppe D'Angelo a écrit : > > (Small story: when I presented Qt Creator at CppCon last year, > > people's > > reactions were always these two: > > > > 1) "Oh,

[Development] Qt with sanitizers

Hi, I made an experiment to see if we should enable sanitizers in CI, by default. Essentially, how much we would slow down integrations and what would be the tests pass rate. Short answer is that, currently, it is not an option, but I produced some data, if someone is interested, please keep

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

On Monday, 16 October 2017 22:48:06 CEST Christian Gagneraud wrote: > On 16 October 2017 at 21:40, Kevin Funk wrote: > > On Sunday, 15 October 2017 11:20:13 CEST Christian Gagneraud wrote: > >> On 14 October 2017 at 04:22, Jean-Michaël Celerier > >> > >>

Re: [Development] QtCS 2017 QtCore sessions

On wtorek, 17 października 2017 17:28:54 CEST Marc Mutz wrote: > > (...) > > Discussion not finished > > I certainly hope so, because the above does not make any sense. See my > talk at QtWS. Returning QStringView is not different from c.begin() or > str.data(). You need to document the lifetime

Re: [Development] QtCS 2017 logging/tracing session notes

Hi Christian, Thanks for the pointers regarding LTT and the underlying Common Trace Format, that was very informative. The fact that CTF supports variants and dynamically sized structures makes it a possible output for modmedLog, as is IETF's Compressed Binary Object Representation. What is

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

On 10/17/2017 05:04 PM, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: I would need to be sure it bootstraps itself (ie, it doesn't needs Qt in order to build qbs) to accept it. Else it would be a nightmare to maintain. Much like qmake actually does if I understand correctly. We're aware of this

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

Le mardi 17 octobre 2017 à 17:45 +0200, Giuseppe D'Angelo a écrit : > I'm just going to ignore the bikeshedding on implementation details, > and > go back to the main point of the thread, which was right here: > > Il 13/10/2017 16:56, Sergio Martins ha scritto: > > Please make something we can

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 06:35:39AM +, Jake Petroules wrote: > On Oct 18, 2017, at 12:48 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote: > > The leak: > > Current Qt build system (qmake) leaks into Qbs via qbs-setup-qt. > qtc and qbs-setup-qt use qmake, because that's the authoritative source

Re: [Development] Qt installation prefix path issue

On 18/10/2017 8:08 pm, "Thiago Macieira" wrote: [moving to the interest mailing list; please drop development@ when replying] On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 23:38:24 PDT bhaskar kotha wrote: > How to configure Qt so that Qmake should not take absolute path. That's not

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

> On 18. Oct 2017, at 08:35, Jake Petroules wrote: > > > >> On Oct 18, 2017, at 12:48 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote: >> >> The trap: >> From reading your comments, I had the feeling that you're thinking that >> building Qt with Qbs will help having a

Re: [Development] Qt installation prefix path issue

[moving to the interest mailing list; please drop development@ when replying] On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 23:38:24 PDT bhaskar kotha wrote: > How to configure Qt so that Qmake should not take absolute path. That's not possible. You can't move Qt: you have to decide where it's going to be the

Re: [Development] Dropping of MSVC 2013

On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 23:35:17 PDT Lars Knoll wrote: > Since you need the patch to work on 5.10, I think we’ll need a workaround > for VS2013. Ok. Working around the lack of unrestricted unions is easy. But I will need to perform a more complete test tomorrow to see if it compiles and

[Development] Qt installation prefix path issue

Hi, When I am configuring Qt with ./configure -prefix /home/bkotha/Qt5.4 -hostprefix /home/bkotha/Qt5.4 -bindir /home/bkotha/Qt5.4/bin -libdir /home/bkotha/Qt5.4/lib -headerdir /home/bkotha/Qt5.4/include -plugindir /home/bkotha/Qt5.4/plugins -importdir /home/bkotha/Qt5.4/imports -archdatadir

Re: [Development] Future of QBS

> On Oct 18, 2017, at 12:48 AM, Christian Gagneraud wrote: > > The trap: > From reading your comments, I had the feeling that you're thinking that > building Qt with Qbs will help having a better Qt/Qbs integration when > building the user's project. > I think it's

Re: [Development] Dropping of MSVC 2013

> On 18 Oct 2017, at 07:43, Thiago Macieira wrote: > > On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 22:25:34 PDT Philippe wrote: >>> We were. I'm asking for a quicker decision now, to decide whether I need >>> to >>> invest time making QRandomGenerator deterministic mode work on MSVC