[Development] INTEGRITY

[Thiago Macieira]

On Thursday, 19 September 2019 12:14:36 PDT 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.

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/ [*]
https://github.com/microsoft/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