Re: Qt5 switching qreal from float to double on arm*

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.debian.ports.amd64
Message-ID <9179297.Ff292LJSqc__17595.7567444586$1383846454$gmane$org@tonks>
On Thursday 07 November 2013 18:18:18 you wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2013, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote:
> > Hi! Starting from Qt 5.2.0 (most probably from rc1 and definitely not from
> > beta1 currently in experimental) Qt5 will switch qreal from float to
> > double on arm*.
> > 
> > We have the option to keep some archs in float by passing a compilation
> > parameter. I've done so for armel and sh4, so only armhf will switch to
> > double.
> > 
> > Of course we are still on time to discuss this, and this is the reason of
> > this mail. What do you think WRT the above changes?
> 
> First, thanks a lot for the heads up on this.

Thank you too for replying :)

> qreal being float instead of double on ARM was the source of a bunch of
> work for ARM porters in the past; now I have these worries/questions:
> * switching it back might imply some new porting work (in the case where
>   the patches were something #if ARM use float #else use double); this
>   might be particularly painful if armel and armhf have different
>   definitions.  Maybe there's a nice define #QREAL_IS_FLOAT or something
>   to help with this.

Don't forget we are talking about *just* Qt5 here, *not* Qt4. We only have 3 
apps building against Qt5 right now. If apps switch to Qt5 they will surely 
find some bumps, so this can be managed.

> * what about arm64?  sounds like this one should be double from the
>   start; not sure what it is right now

I have not added any provisions to arm64, so with the next 5.2.0 [rc/final] 
upload it will switch to double. We are still on time if something needs a fix 
here.

> * when you say you've changed armel and sh4 to keep using float, is this
>   Debian-specific?  Not sure we want a delta with upstream on this kind
>   of stuff.  Would it not work at all to use double, or would it just be
>   slow?  I'd rather have it slow for people using big software on slow
>   arches rather than keeping a delta; it sounds like we do a SONAME
>   transition no matter what anyway

Now this *will* be messy. I have asked upstream [0] and so far haven't got any 
explicit reply from other distro's maintainers.


[0] <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2013-November/014017.html>

But, according to [1]:

  "I should also point out that this option now allows selecting qreal to be
   float on other platforms, besides ARM."

That's why I'm still spamming debian-ports ;)

[1] <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2013-November/014017.html>

So:

- We don't know yet what other distros are going to do.

- If we decide to do the change in Qt5, it will be *without* soname bump. Yes, 
I know many of you will think of this as **ugly**, but so far means 3 binNMUs 
per arch. Now if this is not acceptable, then no change will be made, because 
I won't change Qt5's SONAME.

> * what's the point in qreal anyway?  can't we just switch everything to
>   float or double?  sounds like software should know what kind of level
>   of precision it needs in the first place; e.g. if it's a scale in some
>   UI, then either float or double is enough, but it's not an arch
>   specific decision

I really don't know, it was already there when I started using Qt back in 
Qt3's final days ;-)

But I *do* know that if people want it gone, they will need to wait until Qt6 
and provide the necessary patches :-/

Hope that helps, Lisandro.


-- 

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 836 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=2K/R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.