Qt Contributors Summit 2019 - moc and QMetaObject: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Milian Wolff (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Milian Wolff (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
*** when using build farms, moc is a bottleneck - unless it could be distributed but that doesn't sound feasible | *** when using build farms, moc is a bottleneck - unless it could be distributed but that doesn't sound feasible | ||
*** bootstrapping is quasi impossible when using libclang, we'd have to port moc to not use C++ anymore | *** bootstrapping is quasi impossible when using libclang, we'd have to port moc to not use C++ anymore | ||
*** size of libclang + dependencies is only an issue for developer machines, roughly ~80mb | |||
** why can't we use something easier than libclang? | ** why can't we use something easier than libclang? | ||
*** parsing C++ is actually very hard with some C++ changes recently | *** parsing C++ is actually very hard with some C++ changes recently | ||
*** we only need to parse a few things correctly, but we have to ignore all of the rest properly, which is tough | |||
** for qt6 we could remove old system to use moc without passing include paths, i.e. hard error if file is missing | ** for qt6 we could remove old system to use moc without passing include paths, i.e. hard error if file is missing |
Revision as of 12:34, 21 November 2019
- breaking ABI allows for performance changes and additional features in QMetaObject
- what about newer C++ features
- raw literals are an issue e.g. like in tests
- worse, error handling is confusing and makes it hard for users to know what's going on
- can we use libclang instead of workarounds?
- libclang can be quite slow, but we already did it for lupdate and qdoc
- roughly an order of magnitude slower, but we could do better?
- when using build farms, moc is a bottleneck - unless it could be distributed but that doesn't sound feasible
- bootstrapping is quasi impossible when using libclang, we'd have to port moc to not use C++ anymore
- size of libclang + dependencies is only an issue for developer machines, roughly ~80mb
- why can't we use something easier than libclang?
- parsing C++ is actually very hard with some C++ changes recently
- we only need to parse a few things correctly, but we have to ignore all of the rest properly, which is tough
- for qt6 we could remove old system to use moc without passing include paths, i.e. hard error if file is missing
- raw literals are an issue e.g. like in tests