PROPOSAL: Evolving Qt's multithreading API
-
I find it paradoxical that a mailing list is considered to be a better place for a DISCUSSION than a DISCUSSION BOARD...
Come on, mailing lists stopped being adequate about a decade ago... why all that lingering in the past, especially on something that is actually concerned with the future development?
-
[quote author="utcenter" date="1361280609"]I find it paradoxical that a mailing list is considered to be a better place for a DISCUSSION than a DISCUSSION BOARD...
Come on, mailing lists stopped being adequate about a decade ago... why all that lingering in the past, especially on something that is actually concerned with the future development?[/quote]
Blah, blah, blah... This is not a discussion about the merrits of forums versus mailinglists. Start your own topic in the Lounge forum if you want to discuss that. The fact of the matter is that most development related discussions on Qt are done in the mailing list I mentioned, and so I am suggesting to post the proposal there instead of on this forum. This forum mostly attracts Qt users, not Qt developers. Alternatively, I could point to the relevant IRC channel, but I guess that that is really out of what you find an acceptable channel...
-
There actually was a thread on this particular topic started by another user, but it didn't catch much attention, probably because it wasn't in the mailing list D'OH ;) ... mailing lists... irc... what's next? Punched cards? The phonograph?
-
[quote author="Andre" date="1361276770"]I think it would be better to discuss this in the development@qt-project.org mailing list.[/quote]I plan to do that soon. I thought I'd also ask potential users of the API :)
[quote author="utcenter" date="1361284937"]There actually was a thread on this particular topic started by another user, but it didn't catch much attention, probably because it wasn't in the mailing list D'OH ;) ... mailing lists... irc... what's next? Punched cards? The phonograph? [/quote]Not helpful.
-
JKSH - my apologies for polluting this stillborn thread. I hope I didn't stray it from its intended purpose :)
-
Apology accepted. I've grown accustomed to your polarizing sense of humour :) No, I doubt you've deterred anyone from commenting
-
I've added a link to this topic in the forum (but I missed the last digit in the link, fixed by the next poster) in a thread on this on the mailing list.
-
Thanks Andre. For the mailing-list inclined, the post is at http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2013-February/009970.html
-
BTW, it might be useful to get something like M$'s Parallel.For to speed up lengthy loops. On a related note, some portable explicit vectorization facilities would be nice too, with implementation for major SIMD engines like SSE, AVX, Neon, and naturally a fallback to software if none are present.
-
I'd suggest you post those suggestions to the development mailinglist...
-
My proposal was simply for optimizing the API, without changing the internals of the library. Implementing parallel loops and processor-level optimizations is out of my league.
But anyway, there's some talk about integrating a 3rd-party library -- which DOES offer such features -- into Qt, to reduce the workload on Qt's side (http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2013-February/009968.html )