On 9/17/19 5:00 AM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
It's believed the Stuxnet attack
against Iran's nuclear energy labs was started by dropping USB flash drives in
the parking lot.
While there are hacker groups who operate that way, I'm not buying the
story. Mainly I don't buy it because the
30.09.2019, 11:38, "Rainer Wiesenfarth" :
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 9:26 AM Thiago Macieira
> wrote:
>> [...] Anyway, this is when you should use processEvents(): never.
>
> ...which would be a perfect reason to at least mark it as obsolete in Qt 6?
I would strongly oppose such deprecation,
On Monday, 30 September 2019 08:05:23 PDT Ola Røer Thorsen wrote:
> man. 30. sep. 2019 kl. 16:48 skrev Thiago Macieira <
>
> thiago.macie...@intel.com>:
> > It's just wrong to use it. Just like QThread::{,m,u}sleep. Don't use them.
>
> What's wrong with the sleep functions in particular? Are
On Monday, 30 September 2019 09:35:48 PDT Uwe Rathmann wrote:
> On 9/30/19 4:43 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > It's not advisable to use nested event loops.
>
> It is not the first time that you gave this warning, but something like
> QDialog::exec is simply too handy for GUI development.
Which
On 9/30/19 4:43 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
It's not advisable to use nested event loops.
It is not the first time that you gave this warning, but something like
QDialog::exec is simply too handy for GUI development.
Of course there are known side effects, but IMHO it should be the job of
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 6:07 PM Ola Røer Thorsen wrote:
> What's wrong with the sleep functions in particular?
>
They're uninterruptible. In 99.9(9)% of cases there's a better way to
suspend a thread for some time than unconditionally putting it to sleep.
> Are they worse than calling for
man. 30. sep. 2019 kl. 16:48 skrev Thiago Macieira <
thiago.macie...@intel.com>:
>
> It's just wrong to use it. Just like QThread::{,m,u}sleep. Don't use them.
>
>
What's wrong with the sleep functions in particular? Are they worse than
calling for example unistd.h's "usleep" or
On Monday, 30 September 2019 01:34:25 PDT Rainer Wiesenfarth wrote:
> > [...] Anyway, this is when you should use processEvents(): never.
>
> ...which would be a perfect reason to at least mark it as obsolete in Qt 6?
It's not obsolete. It's not broken.
It's just wrong to use it. Just like
On Monday, 30 September 2019 01:33:12 PDT Richard Weickelt wrote:
> Because I attached a debugger and stopped T1 during
> QCoreApplication::processEvents(). I can see E3 (the one that the thread is
> currently processing) in postEventList at index 0 and E2 at index 1. That's
> it. From there I see
On 9/30/19 3:51 AM, Rainer Wiesenfarth wrote:
...which would be a perfect reason to at least mark it as obsolete in Qt 6?
It cannot be obsoleted because there is too much bad code out there
relying on it. Bad examples doing database I/O and serial I/O within the
main event loop, etc.
I
On 9/30/19 3:51 AM, interest-requ...@qt-project.org wrote:
Anyway, DON'T use processEvents(). Redesign your code.
It's unfortunately QScriptEngine which calls this method, triggered by a
periodic timer. The application is Qbs and it is
blackboxtest::concurrentExecution which triggers that
Spam detection software, running on the system "mx.qt-project.org",
has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email. If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.
>> - E2 is sitting in the event queue of T1 at the second position but gets
>> never executed.
Use combination of
QCoreApplication::sendPostedEvents();
QCoreApplication::processEvents();
.
пн, 30 сент. 2019 г. в 11:37, Rainer Wiesenfarth <
rainer_wiesenfa...@trimble.com>:
> On Mon, Sep
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 9:26 AM Thiago Macieira
wrote:
> [...] Anyway, this is when you should use processEvents(): never.
>
...which would be a perfect reason to at least mark it as obsolete in Qt 6?
I strongly second Thiago's recommendation: processEvents() usually
introduces more problems
>> - Thread T1 is handling an event E1
>> - Thread T1 sends E3 to itself (queued connection)
>> - Thread T2 sends an event E2 to T1 (queued connection)
>> - Thread T1 handles E3 after completing E1.
>> - Thread T1 while handling E3 calls QCoreApplication::processEvents()
>> periodically
>> - E2 is
> -Original Message-
> From: Interest On Behalf Of Alexander
> Dyagilev
> Sent: Monday, 30 September 2019 5:18 AM
> To: Qt Project
> Subject: [Interest] Qt Creator: specify default project to run in .pro file?
>
> Hello,
>
> My project contains several executable projects. One of them
On Sunday, 29 September 2019 22:51:57 PDT Richard Weickelt wrote:
> After debugging a bit, I come to realize that my above description is
> incorrect.
>
> - Thread T1 is handling an event E1
> - Thread T1 sends E3 to itself (queued connection)
> - Thread T2 sends an event E2 to T1 (queued
17 matches
Mail list logo
