[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       amarok-devel
Subject:    Re: [patch] Looking for an opinion on std::auto_ptr
From:       "Ian Monroe" <ian () monroe ! nu>
Date:       2008-10-22 23:01:04
Message-ID: f680fec50810221601y5b42fce6o112ef18b7f9cab40 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Martin Aumueller <aumuell@reserv.at> wrote:
> On Mon October 20 2008, Mark Kretschmann wrote:
> [...]
>> >
>> > You'd probably be better off using QPointer instead of std:auto_ptr, if
>> > only because Amarok uses Qt wherever possible.  It looks like the only
>> > place that STL is used in core Amarok code is a couple of places where I
>> > used STL algorithms where no Qt equivalent exists.
>>
>> Getting completely rid of STL is actually a noble goal, as it could
>> potentially reduce startup times.
>
> I don't expect that the Standard Template Library causes notable startup
> delays as it does not link to additional shared libraries: all the code is
> generated at compile time and contained within the Amarok binary/shlibs. So I
> don't think that this is a reason to stop to profit from the Qt container
> classes' STL compatibility.

This is kind of a separate discussion. Anyways, the reason KDE and
Amarok compile with -DQT_NO_STL is to decrease compile times (which it
does quite substantially).

Ian
_______________________________________________
Amarok-devel mailing list
Amarok-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]