[Qt5-feedback] What is the Qt view of targets, and is it the same as QtSDKs ?

[Peter Alexander]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Charley Bay <charleyb123 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Charley spaketh:
>>
>> > <snip, build hacks, maybe a few main branches>
>> >
>> > This is a very real problem.  I would very much like to see discussion
>> > on this
>> > topic (rich targets for differently configured platforms as handled by
>> > the
>> >build system, as opposed to historic "#if Q_OS" hacks.)
>> >
>> > Fundamentally, the "#if Q_OS" hacks won't be sufficient going forward
>> > IMHO
>> > because they logically represent the "flat list" of resolved states
>> > after a
>> > combinatorial explosion of options (see list below).  It's too painful
>> > to
>> > maintain that flat list, especially since it should be logically
>> > "sparse" given
>> > the set of  *actual* targets which are relevant to the developer (a
>> > rich/large
>> > number of targets, but we do not target all possible combinations).
>
>
> Ben respondeth:
>>
>> I have to quite disagree. The #if Q_OS stuff compliments the build system
>> and is
>> quite required.
>>
>> For example, <snip, good example of product on multiple platforms>
>
>
>>
>> <snip>, As with any tool, it can - of course - be misused; but it has very
>> appropriate
>> and valid uses that are not possible using other methods.
>
> I agree there.  I didn't intend to assert the #if Q_OS should be deprecated,
> but rather, that it would be insufficient (by itself) going forward.
>
> The issue I see is the mix-and-match problem when building for different
> platforms, modules, features, devices, etc.  Using the preprocessor is an
> important tool, but I don't think all these mix-and-match problems can be
> best solved with *only* that tool as we currently do.
>
>> And, I would much rather test for a Qt Define like Q_OS_WIN32 instead of
>> having
>> to test for compiler and target specific defines (e.g. _MSC_VER and
>> _WIN32). It
>> makes that kind of stuff so much more legible and straight forward.
>
> Agreed.
>
> --charley
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qt5-feedback mailing list
> Qt5-feedback at qt.nokia.com
> http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
>
>

I'm in the process of starting a project where Qt will be used to
"Code Once For Everywhere" by fully utilizing the LLVM compiler
toolchain and Clang. This includes, as an example, the capabilities of
the Google Web Toolkit (GWT) ported to Qt.

Maybe the Qt community should consider the opportunity to incorporate
this into Qt itself. Imagine the possibilities of a utilizing this
modular compiler toolchain. I really mean _imagine_ the possibilities
here.