Re: [lttng-dev] [barectf] no nested types?

[RADERMACHER Ansgar via lttng-dev <lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1444 bytes --]

Dear all,

having thought a bit more about it, I can see now that nested types are problematic in general: some types in the language need to be mapped to types that match but are not identical, i.e. have likely a different memory layout. This would be problematic for nested types.
Thus, I'm opting for flattening data (with the exception of lists).

Best regards

Ansgar


________________________________
From: lttng-dev [lttng-dev-bounces@lists.lttng.org] on behalf of RADERMACHER Ansgar via lttng-dev [lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org]
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2021 22:58
To: lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
Subject: [lttng-dev] [barectf] no nested types?

Hello,

I've generated a config.yaml from type definitions in UML. If the type of a payload field is a UML DataType, the generator produces an associated type alias file with "class = structure" and the contained members.

When I tried to compile the configuration file, I get an error message from barectf:
`field-type` property: Nested structure field types are not supported

It this really not supported or are there other mechanisms that enable the use of nested types? If not supported, it would be an important restriction which seems to be not prominently documented (in [1], there is a parenthesis "except a structure field type object" but it's easy to miss)

Best regards

Ansgar


[1] https://barectf.org/docs/barectf/3.0/yaml/struct-ft-obj.html



[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3480 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 156 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
lttng-dev mailing list
lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org
https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev