Changed payload functions from int to qlonglong in TorrentHandle class #3990
Conversation
|
I think it is better to use |
|
Maybe, but I tried to follow the coding style. You can see other functions like totalDownload() and totalUpload() are qlonglong. |
| @@ -1055,12 +1055,12 @@ int TorrentHandle::downloadPayloadRate() const | |||
| return m_nativeStatus.download_payload_rate; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| int TorrentHandle::totalPayloadUpload() const | |||
| qlonglong TorrentHandle::totalPayloadUpload() const | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would not it be better to use libtorrent::size_type directly or via typedef instead of qlonglong?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not really. The typedef size_type works up to 1.0.6, but is removed in libtorrent 1.0.7, and they reference boost::int64_t.
They removed it because a conflict with std::string::size_type. I guess it caused confusion or something.
Anyway boost::int64_t is a signed int64 and it's the same as a qint64 or a qlonglong.
Remember we would have to change functions that are already there like torrentUpload() and torrentDownload() that are already defined as qlonglong, they just missed the Payload ones...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, I see. Then why not qint64?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why the hate of qlonglong :) I'm with you all I would have used qint64 but qlonglong was already there in totalDownload() and totalUpload() and that's not my code ;) So I tried to follow the code style that was already there.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
JFYI: qlonglong is the same as qint64
qint64 is just better name of this type so it is up to you.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why did you use qlonglong here?
Do you mean "Why didn't you use"?
could you comment on this, please?
Any comments? It's just my mistake. At the time I had processed a huge amount of code...
Why didn't I find this earlier? I use x64 environment where int and qlonglong are the same size.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is nothing wrong with qlonglong as it is the same as qint64.
At least according to QT docs.
There is not need to change it all at once, but slowly with new commits
And please no need to blame anyone about it.
After all usage of qlonglong is not a bad thing as it is equal to qint64
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@DoumanAsh Why change qlonglong to qint64?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is no technical need, it is just more easy to understand that this is 64bit integer.
So to improve code read-ability.
But you might as well not to bother about it.
@naikel Please do not worry about what types are used in other places.
qlonglong and qint64 are the same.
Do what you think right.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it's right as it is. Maybe a different commit could improve readibility changing all qlonglong to qint64.
|
@naikel Thanks for fix. @ all |
Changed payload functions from int to qlonglong in TorrentHandle class
This fixes #3985.
Functions totalPayloadUpload() and totalPayloadDownload() must be qlonglong since total_payload_upload and total_payload_download are defined as boost::int64_t size in libtorrent.