apoenitz at t-online.de
Thu Sep 19 21:50:18 CEST 2019
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 09:14:36PM +0200, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
> On 19/09/2019 21:01, André Pönitz wrote:
> > "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.
> It's not so easy: I, for once, don't have access to INTEGRITY to do any a
> priori evaluation of the technical feasibility of a solution.
> I can test and evaluate the other platforms, though. My webgradient patch
> will improve the situation on *ALL* platforms because it removes (quoting):
> > * the binary json representation from QtGui's resources (~4KB
> > compressed, ~50KB uncompressed)
> > * the overhead of reading from the JSON for each used web
> > gradient;
> > * the startup costs of registering the webgradients in the
> > resources;
> > * all the overhead of mutex locking when building such
> > gradients;
> > * all the runtime memory allocations to load, parse and cache
> > the web gradients (including the memory + CPU spike on first
> > load due to the uncompression of the JSON data, as well as a
> > couple of deep copies).
> But it cannot go in in Qt 5 because INTEGRITY does not implement C++11's
Having constexpr or not on certain functions could depend on the actual
compiler in some cases, providing the performance benefits for the
compilers supporting it, and still keeping platforms with unsuitable
> Is it worth it? YES.
That's a valid opinion.
However, right now this looks to me like that you could have your performance
benefits for webgradients without Qt as a whole dropping support for INTEGRITY.
More information about the Development