Re: [Development] C++20 comparisons @ Qt (was: Re: C++20 @ Qt)

2023-11-09 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Thursday, 9 November 2023 01:29:32 PST Ivan Solovev via Development wrote: > Thiago wrote: > > We can also just be evil and use bit_cast > > Why is that evil? Reading about std::bit_cast, this can be an option, if we > guarantee that sizeof(Qt::*_ordering) == sizeof(std::*_ordering). > Which

Re: [Development] C++20 comparisons @ Qt (was: Re: C++20 @ Qt)

2023-11-09 Thread Thiago Macieira
On Wednesday, 8 November 2023 23:17:45 PST Marc Mutz via Development wrote: > std::string is a type, but we're talking about function return types. > Oranges and apples. Naturally the impact of the former is orders of > magnitude larger than that of the latter. std::string and

Re: [Development] C++20 comparisons @ Qt (was: Re: C++20 @ Qt)

2023-11-09 Thread Ivan Solovev via Development
Marc wrote: > Why do you say it only applies to partial ordering? Do we already match > the values, other than that of std::partial_ordering::unordered? Yes, we do. Thiago wrote: > We can also just be evil and use bit_cast Why is that evil? Reading about std::bit_cast, this can be an option, if