Qt Contribution

@aha_1980 Thanks for your detailed answer to this thread!

First, I'm working on a software where users need to instantiate such large integers, that's the main motivation behind my contribution. I cannot estimate whether it'll be a rare use, I only know that we need it. And the fact is we don't have many options:

Inherit from QAbstractSpinBox and reimplement dirtily the needed methods, duplicating existing code from private parts of Qt that we don't have access to, or patch up code to make it works (not a really satisfying solution) Modify Qt source code and distribute it with the program (can be tedious to maintain tho) Modify Qt source code and integrate the changes (providing everyone with a clean new widget/feature)

That being said, I am perfectly aware of the code duplication for I studied the QSpinBox code when implementing the QLongLongSpinBox. Hence I came to (quite) the same conclusion: using a qlonglong in place of the actual int for member variables. The main drawback of this would be the memory cost, I guess, so I was thinking of some kind of optimizations but I will have to consult people that know more about it.

That's where your mailing list comes in handy! So thanks again, I'm definitely going to ask questions there!

Hi. Will this do the job?

Thank you, it works for this error.
So if it works for that I suppose there is a way to solve all errors. I will try to find the solution.

Use the "Topic Tools" button, you have there an entry "Mark as Solved" :)

Hi @_PIB
It's always good to report bugs and defects.
https://bugreports.qt.io is the home of Qt bugreports, where you can report all issues.

Thanks!

That is the solution:
https://forum.qt.io/topic/71702/qt-designer-doesn-t-work/8
Both files ( "debug" and "release") Qt5WebEngineWidgets.dll and Qt5WebEngineWidgets.dll must be deleted or renamed.

yes i need to follow correctly , i dont know where is the configuration wrong.

@koahnig OK! It works! Thanks a lot!

Hi,

Do you mean a guide like this one ?

Hmm... sorry, I'm not sure what's happening, and I don't have admin access to Gerrit.

To contact an admin, subscribe to the Development mailing list and post there.

Please note that it is currently summer holidays in Norway, so most of the Qt Company staff are currently on leave.

The user must have deleted the account.
It is a valid user, as they contacted me privately. I'm looking into what happened. Initially it seems like the post was stuck in approval, as the blog author hadn't checked the comments in a while. But still working on the details.

To me it is pretty normal to have users who do not want to share any details anywhere. Apparently this user did not want to leave a nickname here. That happens, and it's ok.

Of course with the forum there is a problem in deleting nicknames, as Qt Account remembers them and when the user wants to rejoin here, they will get the same nickname (not exactly sure what will happen to orphan posts like this if that happens.). So choosing a nickname is important.

The other take-away here is that people really need to have a channel where they can voice problems when they see them, and someone who takes the issue further. If blog comment approval looks wrong, then it is important to raise it here or in feedback.

@RickBlacker
it's a two year old thread :)
the -j option in make is used to set how many processes will be used for compiling. It doesn't matter if it's 32 or 64 bit, it's all about the number of cores your machine has. You want them all busy with the compilation, and not idling.

For me it would look like "make -j4" as I'm typing on a heavy desktop machine with four cores (my resource manager shows 8, but that is just Intel hyperthreading showing virtual cores).

Hi,

Since those are the same patches you should only target one branch. If it's the wrong one, don't worry it will be changed for you.

In order to get them move forward, you should add reviewers that are concerned by your patches e.g. the module maintainers.

One probable remark you will have is that your patch modifies several unrelated stuff so you should split them in order to ensure atomic changes e.g. one disables the item view part, another one the shortcut etc.

@kshegunov
thank you for your explanations
Have a nice day

@SGaist
Ok. Thank you!

Ask Alex Blasche if you're allowed to re-submit for the 5.6 branch.

@Chris-Kawa said:

t by value creates copies and is extremely bad for locality. Passing pointers is optimizer unfriendly. Always prefer a const referenc

thanks for the advices! i will start working on it.

@SGaist Thank you.