Qt wiki will be updated on October 12th 2023 starting at 11:30 AM (EEST) and the maintenance will last around 2-3 hours. During the maintenance the site will be unavailable.
Qt Contributors Summit 2019 - moc and QMetaObject
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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? see moc-ng
- 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? => this is the biggest issue probably
- 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
- windows headers should be supported nowadays
- libclang C api can be used, C++ api isn't stable, not a good idea probably - need to stay compatible with trunk continuously otherwise
- 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
- one could add a clang plugin in addition if moc is also "partially" a library that could be reused from elsewhere
- that would allow us to do moc'ing at compile time to remove any overhead
- we will get that once refactoring support lands in C++ for real
- when we need to extend moc, do we extend the old one or do we build a new tool based on top of libclang and add the new features there?
- who does the work?
- do we need it in Qt 6?
- reflection / verdigris
- proper reflection will help to implement something like verdigris
- what about the JSON output, that cannot be handled by C++ reflection
- the JSON files are quasi the better solution to the aweful hack that is qmlplugindump
- necessary for proper tooling support for QML
- we could potentially put the JSON data into a separate DSO section instead and read it from there
- verdigris should have the same knowledge to support all of the info necessary for the tooling side
- C++ community may need similar features anyways for e.g. generating language bindings (that's also not part of the DSO but it would be e.g. a python file)
- using the new syntax not something for Qt 6.0 but potentially Qt 7 and otherwise keep an eye on reflection study group and make sure we stay compatible with it
- verdigris syntax is ugly but it gives us templated QObjects so that's a good thing
- could be merged into Qt upstream for this specific use case
- compiling code using verdigris is quite slow but better distributable
- ulf had an idea about using templates as a different mechanism to implement the introspection stuff -> how? needs more details/research
- plans for the QMetaObject
- make as much as possible compile-time, esp. QMetaType and use that more
- remove string lookups and instead use something faster
- qMetaTypeId will return a pointer instead of an integer to get compiler errors instead of implicit downcasting to int (source incompat!)
- we need to find new ways to do e.g. type lookups by name
- there are open questions regarding opaque types and forward declared types (ptrs in signals/slots) -> someone needs to expand on this, the note taker couldn't follow