[Development] Qt 5.5.0 header diff

[Knoll Lars]

On 11/06/15 16:33, "Marc Mutz" <marc.mutz at kdab.com> wrote:

>On Thursday 11 June 2015 13:43:15 Knoll Lars wrote:
>> Well, QSslEllipticCurve is problematic IMO. The class only contains one
>> int and accesses it inline. Since we might have other backends than
>> openssl implementing this in the future, I’d like have this non inline
>>and
>> a qint64 as data type (so we could replace it with a d pointer later on
>>if
>> required).
>
>Please read the discussion on https://codereview.qt-project.org/94022
>
>TL;DR:
>There will never be more than a few dozen elliptic curves. They will
>never be 
>mutable. So their state can be kept in a read-only location with the int
>indexing into it.
>
>The urge to hide everything behind a d-pointer is strong in Qt, but here,
>it 
>makes no sense.

Ok for me. Just wanted to make sure we’re all fine with this.

>
>> The presharedkey authenticator is missing a copy constructor taking a
>> rvalue ref, but that’s minor and can be fixed BC in 5.6 as well.
>
>Can't have an inline move ctor, as it's using QSharedDataPointer. Can't
>have 
>an out-of-line move ctor, since that's currently forbidden. Maybe in 5.6,
>if 
>we require rvalue refs.
>
>BTW: Can someone send a summary of Qt 5.6 vs. C++11 to the ML, for those
>that 
>couldn't attend?

The short summary (full one will hopefully still come from whoever took
notes): 

Compiler wise we’ll have VS2012 and gcc 4.7 as a baseline. It’s ok to use
the C++11 language features supported by these compilers unconditionally
in Qt (both in headers and implementations). This also means we can remove
some ifdefs for rvalue refs, Q_DECL_OVERRIDE etc. Some care is still
required when using STL features that might cause BC issues for us.

Cheers,
Lars