Filterx expr type macros #465
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Signed-off-by: Balazs Scheidler <balazs.scheidler@axoflow.com>
Signed-off-by: Balazs Scheidler <balazs.scheidler@axoflow.com>
bazsi
force-pushed
the
filterx-expr-type-macros
branch
from
6c2eaa6 to
8d96191
Compare
This was referenced Jan 24, 2025
MrAnno
reviewed
Jan 27, 2025
…on from a macro Due to axoflow#465 (comment) Signed-off-by: Balazs Scheidler <balazs.scheidler@axoflow.com>
MrAnno
approved these changes
Jan 31, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The current convention is to decide whether we are looking at a specific FilterXExpr instance based on the value of the
"eval" function pointer.
Issue is that #433 will change that pointer at runtime to incorporate expr level visibility into perf backtraces.
This could also be the beginning of a real FilterXExprType struct (to avoid repeating the function pointers into all expr instances), but this PR does not go that far.
NOTE: this does not create FILTERX_EXPR_TYPE_DECLARE() for all exprs, only those which had a filterx_expr_is_XXX() function. As long as noone is checking if an expr is of a specific type, this is optional.