Hi everyone,
I'm trying to modify the sources codes of wireshark QT but apparently I
can't add new slots. I mean i added in main_windows.h my declaration,
void PingCouter();
in main_windows_slot.cpp my code
void MainWindow::PingCounter()
{
plugin_test *test = new plugin_test(this);
On 29 September 2015 at 15:21, Alexis LE METAYER wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm trying to modify the sources codes of wireshark QT but apparently I
> can't add new slots. I mean i added in main_windows.h my declaration,
>
> void PingCouter();
>
Is the above a typo?,
On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:00 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
> A pure netmask (without an associated address) is representable as
> just a UINT8. Would it be terrible to write `protocolXYZ.netmask ==
> 24`?
Some are sent over the wire as a 32-bit mask, which could, conceivably, have
holes
A pure netmask (without an associated address) is representable as
just a UINT8. Would it be terrible to write `protocolXYZ.netmask ==
24`?
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:59 PM, wrote:
> There's a discussion in a patch review
> (https://code.wireshark.org/review/10438/), that
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:38 AM, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> On Sep 30, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>
>> I think the intent was to be able to run Wireshark's C code through C++
>> compilers; I can't find the mail where this was discussed, but, as I
>>
I think the intent was to be able to run Wireshark's C code through C++
compilers; I can't find the mail where this was discussed, but, as I remember,
the issue was that Microsoft were dragging their feet on C99 support, and we
wanted to be able to use at least some features present in both C99
There's a discussion in a patch review
(https://code.wireshark.org/review/10438/), that I think should get more
visibility.
The question is "should an IPv4 netmask field be its own fieldtype?" The main
problem being that netmasks are being treated as IPv4 fields and are attempted
to be
On Sep 30, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> I think the intent was to be able to run Wireshark's C code through C++
> compilers; I can't find the mail where this was discussed, but, as I
> remember, the issue was that Microsoft were dragging their feet on C99
>
RFC950: "Since the bits that identify the subnet are specified by a
bitmask, they need not be adjacent in the address. However, we recommend
that the subnet bits be contiguous and located as the most significant bits
of the local address."
So essentially any mask IS legal (even if not
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 12:03 AM, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> On Sep 30, 2015, at 9:00 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
>
>> A pure netmask (without an associated address) is representable as
>> just a UINT8. Would it be terrible to write `protocolXYZ.netmask ==
>> 24`?
>
>
10 matches
Mail list logo