Hi Koosha,
Here's my (admittedly much self-serving) suggestion:
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4960
i don't know if it's trivial, but it's unrelated to the core Wireshark stuff
and thus should be easy to fix without having to digg into all the details.
Regards,
Lars
2012/5/21 Balazs Nagy nagybalazs@gmail.com:
Hello everybody!
I've faced a problem during decoding an SMS sending process.
The situation is the following:
I sent 2 SMs to a mobile which was turn to offline. So in first round these
SMs were stored in the SMSC. When the mobile was turn ON
Jakub Zawadzki wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 05:14:40PM -0400, Jeff Morriss wrote:
Jakub Zawadzki wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 02:55:06PM -0400, Jeff Morriss wrote:
Or do I have to find another solution?
I propose another solution:
#ifdef Z_BLOCK
/* when preset */
#else
/*
Bill Meier wrote:
On 4/23/2012 3:54 PM, Bill Meier wrote:
On 4/23/2012 2:51 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
Most of Wireshark 1.6.x uses GLib memory slices only if built with
GLib 2.10 or later; it uses memory chunks otherwise.
However, MATE unconditionally uses memory slices, which means it
fails to
Hi,
Please do not release 1.6.8 in its current state or bump library version to
2.0.0 for libwireshark. Using 1.1.8 is misleading as 1.6.8 breaks the ABI:
http://rbalint.cs.bme.hu/ws-ABI-1.6.7-1.6.8/libwireshark/abi_compat_report.html
Please run the following command before release to verify
On May 21, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Balint Reczey wrote:
Please do not release 1.6.8 in its current state or bump library version to
2.0.0 for libwireshark. Using 1.1.8 is misleading as 1.6.8 breaks the ABI:
http://rbalint.cs.bme.hu/ws-ABI-1.6.7-1.6.8/libwireshark/abi_compat_report.html
Summary:
On 5/21/12 12:39 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
On May 21, 2012, at 12:02 PM, Balint Reczey wrote:
Please do not release 1.6.8 in its current state or bump library version to
2.0.0 for libwireshark. Using 1.1.8 is misleading as 1.6.8 breaks the ABI:
The two files packet-ymsg.c and packet-yhoo.c both define structs
called yahoo_rawpacket. Apart from the fact that the two structs are
not the same but have the same name (confusing, but not technically a
problem), both of these structs share a common feature: they are only
ever used exactly once,
On May 21, 2012, at 2:21 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
So my question is what people feel the best style is in this situation?
1. Replace the structure with a #define of the length, possibly
leaving the struct #if 0'ed out for posterity.
2. Add some compiler hints to never pad the struct, but
