[Development] INTEGRITY

Thiago Macieira thiago.macieira at intel.com
Thu Sep 19 23:57:17 CEST 2019

On Thursday, 19 September 2019 12:14:36 PDT Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development 
> 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.

And it's now even further behind, relatively speaking.

Marc wrote:
> If you would
> have a look at how much complexity is taken out of the Qt implementation
> of QWaitCondition by simply implementing it on top of the std one, incl.
> deleting a rather recent change for just Android, it should be obvious
> how this hurts maintainability of Qt. I know Thiago revels in such
> details

Three days ago, I did an investigation of libc++ and MSVC's 
std::condition_variable to see whether using wait_for() or wait_until() was 
better, minimising the number of calls to get the current system time. I wrote 
to Marc that wait_until() was better in both and showed the libc++ code to 
prove it, but had to write that I couldn't paste the MSVC code.

Since yesterday, I can:
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/cppblog/open-sourcing-msvcs-stl/ [*]

So all the Standard Libraries we depend on can be freely studied for 
performance and shortcomings and we can even submit fixes if we feel like it. 
EXCEPT for Integrity.

[*] Note the blog author's initials :-)
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel System Software Products

More information about the Development mailing list