Hi Viktor, >Is there any final result for the three different >memory handling modes?
Yes, this is the final structure, as the handling mode should be dynamic, please consult the Qt documents. Is in specified cases is recommended to use the "delete later" feature what is the default for the actual interface implementation. After consulting the actual Qt documentation and discussions on the adequate sites please live it at is, is a conscious decision from my side, to offer the flexibility to adopt the existing and future decisions of the Qt developers. > IMO we should only leave one, the one which works > the most efficiently and without leaks. >Is it time to make the decision yet? This is not black or white issue, it's not a race situation here, studying the Qt documentations, we need a dynamic approach here. In some situation the best solution can be different, so please close this issue, I intentionally put that things in the code, maybe we are less informed, but studying the Qt documents... But as a final conclusion, WE ARE NOT FACING WITH MEMO LEAK ISSUES regarding the Qt interface automatically generated. The problem is with our measurement instruments! We will need help here to demonstrate it, if is the case. The actual Windows implementation is not adequate to decide the memory "consumption" as the windows internal are so complicated. I tried to tune somehow the Pritpals algorithms but without success after studying some sites, sorry. So my general feeling is that the 'memory' problem is solved by the automatic generated code! For these things demonstration we have to work hardly. I stopped temporally my thinking... Best regards, István _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
