uri: Do not pass uri_internal_t to property handlers
#19805
Merged
+102
−105
Conversation
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
Within an individual property handler, the `parser` is already implicitly known, which just leaves the `->uri` field which must contain the entire state necessary for the handlers to work with. Pass the `->uri` directly. It avoids one pointer indirection, since the handlers do not need to follow the pointer to the `uri_internal_t` just to follow the pointer to the URI state. Instead the URI pointer can directly be passed using a register with the dereferences (if necessary) happening in the caller, providing more insight for the compiler to work with. It also makes it more convenient to use the handlers directly for code that already knows that it needs a specific URI parser, since no `uri_internal_t` needs to be constructed to store the already-known information about which parser to use.
This makes the code a little less verbose.
TimWolla
commented
Sep 11, 2025
Comment on lines
-68
to
99
| zval tmp; | ||
| if (parser->property_handler.scheme.read(internal_uri, PHP_URI_COMPONENT_READ_MODE_RAW, &tmp) == SUCCESS) { | ||
| if (parser->property_handler.scheme.read(uri, PHP_URI_COMPONENT_READ_MODE_RAW, &tmp) == SUCCESS) { | ||
| zend_hash_update(result, ZSTR_KNOWN(ZEND_STR_SCHEME), &tmp); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (parser->property_handler.username.read(internal_uri, PHP_URI_COMPONENT_READ_MODE_RAW, &tmp) == SUCCESS) { | ||
| if (parser->property_handler.username.read(uri, PHP_URI_COMPONENT_READ_MODE_RAW, &tmp) == SUCCESS) { | ||
| zend_hash_update(result, ZSTR_KNOWN(ZEND_STR_USERNAME), &tmp); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (parser->property_handler.password.read(internal_uri, PHP_URI_COMPONENT_READ_MODE_RAW, &tmp) == SUCCESS) { | ||
| if (parser->property_handler.password.read(uri, PHP_URI_COMPONENT_READ_MODE_RAW, &tmp) == SUCCESS) { | ||
| zend_hash_update(result, ZSTR_KNOWN(ZEND_STR_PASSWORD), &tmp); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (parser->property_handler.host.read(internal_uri, PHP_URI_COMPONENT_READ_MODE_RAW, &tmp) == SUCCESS) { | ||
| if (parser->property_handler.host.read(uri, PHP_URI_COMPONENT_READ_MODE_RAW, &tmp) == SUCCESS) { | ||
| zend_hash_update(result, ZSTR_KNOWN(ZEND_STR_HOST), &tmp); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (parser->property_handler.port.read(internal_uri, PHP_URI_COMPONENT_READ_MODE_RAW, &tmp) == SUCCESS) { | ||
| if (parser->property_handler.port.read(uri, PHP_URI_COMPONENT_READ_MODE_RAW, &tmp) == SUCCESS) { | ||
| zend_hash_update(result, ZSTR_KNOWN(ZEND_STR_PORT), &tmp); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (parser->property_handler.path.read(internal_uri, PHP_URI_COMPONENT_READ_MODE_RAW, &tmp) == SUCCESS) { | ||
| if (parser->property_handler.path.read(uri, PHP_URI_COMPONENT_READ_MODE_RAW, &tmp) == SUCCESS) { | ||
| zend_hash_update(result, ZSTR_KNOWN(ZEND_STR_PATH), &tmp); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (parser->property_handler.query.read(internal_uri, PHP_URI_COMPONENT_READ_MODE_RAW, &tmp) == SUCCESS) { | ||
| if (parser->property_handler.query.read(uri, PHP_URI_COMPONENT_READ_MODE_RAW, &tmp) == SUCCESS) { | ||
| zend_hash_update(result, ZSTR_KNOWN(ZEND_STR_QUERY), &tmp); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| if (parser->property_handler.fragment.read(internal_uri, PHP_URI_COMPONENT_READ_MODE_RAW, &tmp) == SUCCESS) { | ||
| if (parser->property_handler.fragment.read(uri, PHP_URI_COMPONENT_READ_MODE_RAW, &tmp) == SUCCESS) { | ||
| zend_hash_update(result, ZSTR_KNOWN(ZEND_STR_FRAGMENT), &tmp); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this part of the diff shows nicely how much redundant work the handlers would have been doing when interested in multiple fields of an URI.
nielsdos
approved these changes
Sep 11, 2025
kocsismate
approved these changes
Sep 11, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Very nice, thanks! Initially, I also passed the URI to these handlers, but later on, I bumped into some obstacles, and had to change for either a double pointer or an outer structure like the internal URI. I can't remember what the exact issue was though :( But apparently, it no longer exists
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.
Within an individual property handler, the
parseris already implicitly known, which just leaves the->urifield which must contain the entire state necessary for the handlers to work with.Pass the
->uridirectly. It avoids one pointer indirection, since the handlers do not need to follow the pointer to theuri_internal_tjust to follow the pointer to the URI state. Instead the URI pointer can directly be passed using a register with the dereferences (if necessary) happening in the caller, providing more insight for the compiler to work with.It also makes it more convenient to use the handlers directly for code that already knows that it needs a specific URI parser, since no
uri_internal_tneeds to be constructed to store the already-known information about which parser to use.