[Development] INTEGRITY

André Pönitz apoenitz at t-online.de
Thu Sep 19 21:01:41 CEST 2019

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:18:26AM +0200, Mutz, Marc via Development wrote:
> But it helps nothing with all the places where we use QWaitCondition in Qt
> implementation and would like to replace it with std::condition_variable +
> std::mutex, because, as I explained in an earlier mail, QWaitCondition is a
> condition_variabe_any and thus has inherently and unavoidably more overhead
> than condition_variable + mutex. There is no justification to add #ifdefs
> for all the places that QWaitCondition is used unconditionally now, so
> either we don't get the order-of-magnitude improvement on our main platform,
> Windows, or we need to introduce a private QtPrivate::condition_variable as
> an inline wrapper around condition_variable + mutex or, for Integrity,
> QWaitCondition + QMutex, which we need to replace once more with
> std::condition_variable + mutex if Integrity is fixed. Is it worth it,

"Is it worth" is exactly the question that should drive this kind of discussion.
And it can be answered _after_ evaluating, or even guessing the "value" of the
available options.

But you entered the discussion _again_ with _your_ answer, stating _again_
that "we" "would like to replace it".

Can you please try to use a less overbearing approach? Like, presenting the
options, stating your personal opinion on their respective values, give people the
impression they have a chance to give their views, and when the dust has settled,
give the impression of making an educated guess on the result and "decide" _then_?

"Thank you."


More information about the Development mailing list