Many thanks for the kind replies all.
Jim Bublitz wrote:
I seem to recall the actual overhead for a fairly large program using several
PyQt modules and 5 or 6 PyKDE modules is somewhere around 6-8MB according to
'free'. Another way to look at it is that the *first* app has a lot of
overhead,
On Thursday 03 March 2005 22:32, Arash Abedinzadeh wrote:
> On Thursday 03 March 2005 21:37, Arash Abedinzadeh wrote:
> > Great, it seems to work, thanks. I just compiled the kdesu module and
> > imported it without any problems. I'll compile the whole package right now
> > to be sure that everythi
On Thursday 03 March 2005 10:25, Simon Edwards wrote:
> On Thursday 03 March 2005 17:15, Jim Bublitz wrote:
> > I guess I'm not up to speed on this issue. Is this the __attribute__
> > stuff?
>
> maybe, symbol visibility means you can hide C++ symbols in shared
> libraries. i.e. private symbols are
On Thursday 03 March 2005 18:06, Arash Abedinzadeh wrote:
> If there's anything I can do, let me know.
These problems are hopefully fixed in KDE CVS.
I've grabbed the rc1 tar ball and replaced the right files with the ones from
CVS. Could you grab the fixed tar ball and try it out. That would be
On Thursday 03 March 2005 17:15, Jim Bublitz wrote:
> I guess I'm not up to speed on this issue. Is this the __attribute__ stuff?
maybe, symbol visibility means you can hide C++ symbols in shared libraries.
i.e. private symbols are hidden from users of the library.
> What's the change between g
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 22:58, Simon Edwards wrote:
> On Thursday 03 March 2005 07:18, Jim Bublitz wrote:
> > I just compiled the latest PyKDE snapshot (20050301) against KDE 3.4.0rc1
>
> and
>
> > it compiles without a hitch and seems to work fine (didn't test much
>
> though).
>
> In KDE CVS t
Hi Simon,
On Thursday 03 March 2005 07:58, Simon Edwards wrote:
> On Thursday 03 March 2005 07:18, Jim Bublitz wrote:
> > I just compiled the latest PyKDE snapshot (20050301) against KDE 3.4.0rc1
> > and it compiles without a hitch and seems to work fine (didn't test much
> > though).
>
> In KD
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:20:43 +
Phil Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hopefully the attached shows that SIP 4.2 really, really doesn't have a
> memory
> leak.
>
Ok, after fixing the tests with the processEvents() qt-bugs suggestion, and your
clarifications about ownership parenting, I
>I'm trying to expose an abstract base class. In my .sip file I
> have
>
> virtual double operator()(double) const = 0;
>
>>From sip command I get
>
> sip -e -g -c . -I /usr/local/share/sip -I /usr/local/share/sip/qtcanvas -I
> ../../hippodraw/sip \
> -t Qt_3_3_0 -t WS_X11 ../../hippodraw/
