refactor: Simplify heap size estimation for types that own no heap allocations#22918
Open
mkleen wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
refactor: Simplify heap size estimation for types that own no heap allocations#22918mkleen wants to merge 1 commit into
mkleen wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
621f82e to
75222f9
Compare
0b3e8d9 to
3aaf6ed
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
@kosiew Do you have maybe time for a review of this? Thanks |
3aaf6ed to
c99167e
Compare
c99167e to
f93b6ae
Compare
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Which issue does this PR close?
Rationale for this change
This pr simplifies heap size estimation by using a macro for types that own no heap allocations.
This removes a lot of redundant code.
What changes are included in this PR?
See above.
Are these changes tested?
Yes, previous tests are passing and more tests are added.
Are there any user-facing changes?
No.