[Development] Notes on QtCore session @ QCS2016
thiago.macieira at intel.com
Tue Sep 6 21:51:30 CEST 2016
Em terça-feira, 6 de setembro de 2016, às 17:10:19 PDT, Kevin Kofler escreveu:
> Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > It was a *choice* not to depend on the C++ Standard Library ABI for
> > features outside of the language support. The choice was made during Qt
> > 5.0 development, in response to the -no-stl option being removed. It was
> > originally done so that applications and libraries on Apple platforms
> > could choose to use libstdc++ or libc++: it was common back in 2012 that
> > applications would need to link to proprietary libraries that used
> > libstdc++ and could not easily be recompiled. That choice extended to GCC
> > 4.9 & 5.0 that broke compatibility, and it turned out to be a bonus for us
> > because Qt-only applications did not need to be recompiled.
> I think it was a mistake to remove -no-stl to begin with, and that Qt API
> should not be littered with ugly std:: APIs, not just for ABI reasons, but
> also for API (consistency) reasons.
I disagree, even though the build times have significantly increased.
> Why can't Qt continue to offer better Q* equivalents as it has always done?
> What benefit does it bring to users to deprecate nice APIs for less nice
> ones just because the latter are part of the compiler?
Marc will have more reasons, but I'll just give you one: iterators. Why should
we not have the iterator tags?
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
More information about the Development