Re: [Development] Retiring libtiff too

> On 3 May 2016, at 08:39, Lars Knoll wrote: > Ideally, I would like to get rid of these libraries in src/3rdparty. Instead, > we should build up to date versions of these libs in Coin, and simply ship > those together with our Qt libraries. With the online installers it

Re: [Development] Retiring libtiff too

> On 3 May 2016, at 08:39, Lars Knoll wrote: > Ideally, I would like to get rid of these libraries in src/3rdparty. Instead, > we should build up to date versions of these libs in Coin, and simply ship > those together with our Qt libraries. With the online installers it

Re: [Development] Retiring libtiff too

Em terça-feira, 3 de maio de 2016, às 06:39:42 PDT, Lars Knoll escreveu: > Ideally, I would like to get rid of these libraries in src/3rdparty. > Instead, we should build up to date versions of these libs in Coin, and > simply ship those together with our Qt libraries. With the online > installers

Re: [Development] Retiring libtiff too

Em terça-feira, 3 de maio de 2016, às 07:06:41 PDT, Lars Knoll escreveu: > On 03/05/16 08:58, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira" > thiago.macie...@intel.com> wrote: > > >Em terça-feira, 3 de maio de 2016, às 06:39:42

Re: [Development] Retiring libtiff too

On 03/05/16 08:58, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira" wrote: >Em terça-feira, 3 de maio de 2016, às 06:39:42 PDT, Lars Knoll escreveu: >> Ideally, I would like to get rid of these libraries in

Re: [Development] Retiring libtiff too

On 02/05/16 20:20, "Development on behalf of Thiago Macieira" wrote: >On segunda-feira, 2 de maio de 2016 18:07:29 PDT Lars Knoll wrote: >> >> So while I don't like us having copies of these libraries

[Development] User script for Qt's gerrit to have code.woboq.org integration

Hi, Some time ago, I made an user script that tries to integrate with https:// code.woboq.org/qt5 with gerrit. (i posted it once but it was in a deep thread so you might not have noticed it) With that script, you can just click on a function in the code on gerrit and it will lookup in the

Re: [Development] Qt CI reliability

> -Original Message- > From: sean.harmer On Behalf Of Sean Harmer > Sent: tiistaina 3. toukokuuta 2016 15.45 > To: development@qt-project.org > Cc: Tuukka Turunen > Subject: Re: [Development] Qt CI reliability > > > So in summary, I appreciate the CI is a big

Re: [Development] unique_ptr vs. QSharedPointer

These are completely different. Maybe you mean shared_ptr vs. QSharedPointer ? Philippe On Tue, 3 May 2016 11:14:05 + Shawn Rutledge wrote: > In what ways are they different? > > Is it OK to use unique_ptr in public API starting in 5.7? > > How about in

Re: [Development] unique_ptr vs. QSharedPointer

On Tuesday 03 May 2016 13:14:05 Shawn Rutledge wrote: > In what ways are they different? One implements unique ownership, isn't copyable, only movable, has almost zero overhead (with a stateless deleter), and is standardised from C++11 on, the other implements shared ownership, is copyable and

[Development] unique_ptr vs. QSharedPointer

In what ways are they different? Is it OK to use unique_ptr in public API starting in 5.7? How about in internal implementation? ___ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

[Development] Qt API consistency (was: Re: unique_ptr vs. QSharedPointer)

I'd like another question be answered before the discussion on yet another unsystematic use of yet another language or library feature starts: How important is API consistency for Qt today? Andre' ___ Development mailing list

[Development] [5.7-beta] compile error with xcode-6.4

compiling the 5.7-beta tarball with xcode-6.4 fails with: > In file included from /Users/tim/dev/qt3rd/qtbase/src/gui/image/qicon.cpp:1: > In file included from > /Users/tim/dev/qt3rd/qtbase/src/gui/kernel/qt_gui_pch.h:69: > In file included from

Re: [Development] unique_ptr vs. QSharedPointer

Am Dienstag, 3. Mai 2016, 14:19:00 CEST schrieb Shawn Rutledge: > > On 3 May 2016, at 13:31, Marc Mutz wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 03 May 2016 13:14:05 Shawn Rutledge wrote: > > > >> In what ways are they different? > > > > > > One implements unique ownership, isn't

Re: [Development] Qt CI reliability

On Monday 02 May 2016 05:05:07 Tuukka Turunen wrote: > Hi Sean, > > Firstofall, I do apologize for the inconvenience caused by the CI system. We > are fully aware of the situation, and the effect is has for productivity. > All the developers of The Qt Company are using exactly the same CI system.

Re: [Development] [5.7-beta] compile error with xcode-6.4

On May 3, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Thiago Macieira > wrote: Em terça-feira, 3 de maio de 2016, às 16:33:46 PDT, Tim Blechmann escreveu: compiling the 5.7-beta tarball with xcode-6.4 fails with: r.h:759:21: error: destination for this

Re: [Development] Qt CI reliability

On Tuesday 03 of May 2016 14:54:50 Sean Harmer wrote: > On Monday 02 May 2016 11:14:24 Jędrzej Nowacki wrote: > > On Saturday 30 of April 2016 20:26:20 Sean Harmer wrote: > (...) > What would be a *very* useful feature would be if we can trigger a test > build of a change on a particular

Re: [Development] Qt CI reliability

On Monday 02 May 2016 11:14:24 Jędrzej Nowacki wrote: > On Saturday 30 of April 2016 20:26:20 Sean Harmer wrote: > > Hi, > > Hi, > > > after yet another 5 hour wait just to be greeted with yet another random > > failure with no build logs I'm getting really tired of the poor > > reliability > >

Re: [Development] unique_ptr vs. QSharedPointer

> On 3 May 2016, at 13:31, Marc Mutz wrote: > > On Tuesday 03 May 2016 13:14:05 Shawn Rutledge wrote: >> In what ways are they different? > > One implements unique ownership, isn't copyable, only movable, has almost > zero > overhead (with a stateless deleter), and is

Re: [Development] [5.7-beta] compile error with xcode-6.4

>>> r.h:759:21: error: destination for this 'memmove' call is a pointer to >>> class containing a dynamic class> >>> 'QPixmap'; vtable pointer will be overwritten >>> [-Werror,-Wdynamic-class-memaccess]> >>> memmove(abegin, aend, (d->size - itemsToErase - >>>

[Development] Header review for 5.7 (vs 5.6)

Hi all, As we approach the release of 5.7.0, we naturally need to review the changes to APIs for all the usual things. This time, however, we decided [0] it would be nice to actually make use of Gerrit's ability to display changes nicely, rather than [1] displaying a diff as if it were an

Re: [Development] [5.7-beta] compile error with xcode-6.4

Em terça-feira, 3 de maio de 2016, às 16:33:46 PDT, Tim Blechmann escreveu: > compiling the 5.7-beta tarball with xcode-6.4 fails with: > > r.h:759:21: error: destination for this 'memmove' call is a pointer to > > class containing a dynamic class> > > 'QPixmap'; vtable pointer will be

Re: [Development] Header review for 5.7 (vs 5.6)

Em terça-feira, 3 de maio de 2016, às 16:24:32 PDT, Edward Welbourne escreveu: > Consequently, to take the example of qtbase, instead of looking at more > than 100 k lines with no colouring mark-up to help you see what's really > changed, reviewers only need to look at a little under 8 k lines,

[Development] -developer-build (was: [5.7-beta] compile error with xcode-6.4

I got reminded of something: On Tue, 3 May 2016, Thiago Macieira wrote: Still, note that this is not an error. It's a warning turned to error because of the -Werror, which means that you used -developer-build. In that case, please send a patch. :-) I've seen my Qt users use -developer-build

Re: [Development] unique_ptr vs. QSharedPointer

Em terça-feira, 3 de maio de 2016, às 17:00:15 PDT, Olivier Goffart escreveu: > Because of the convention that we do not want our ABI to depends on the > STL's ABI. So we can't use standard container in the signature of > exported functions. Which has saved our hides twice in the past few years

Re: [Development] -developer-build (was: [5.7-beta] compile error with xcode-6.4

Em terça-feira, 3 de maio de 2016, às 19:01:30 PDT, Harri Porten escreveu: > I've seen my Qt users use -developer-build because > >http://wiki.qt.io/Building_Qt_5_from_Git > > proposes it and the impact not clear to everyone. Qt users naturally > consider themselves to be developers I've

Re: [Development] [OS X] next Qt 5.6.0 question : Freetype (building with -fontconfig)?

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > On Monday 21 March 2016, René J. V. Bertin wrote: > > > For further comparison, here's a screenshot showing > > > > > > CoreText vs Cocoa+Freetype vs XCB+Freetype+Fontconfig > > > > > > all on OS X, using a theme