Can Q_GLOBAL_STATIC replace KStaticDelete ?
thiago at kde.org
Wed Jan 17 23:42:02 GMT 2007
Matthias Kretz wrote:
>Right, but that wouldn't clean up the static object if ~QCoreApplication
> isn't called. I need something that also gets cleaned up on lib unload.
>So the extra Q/KGlobalStatic class is necessary also in this case.
>Do we want a non-thread-safe solution for K_GLOBAL_STATIC then? Or can
> the trolls give us permission to use QAtomic-API? (I'm happy to use
> Q(Basic)AtomicPointer instead of q_atomic_test_and_set_ptr if that
I think that global statics that require Kinstance should be the absolute
minority and code can be specially crafted for them.
I think we should NOT have K_GLOBAL_STATIC. Adding it will complicate
because the semantics won't be clear.
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the kde-core-devel