[Wireshark-dev] QT wireshark problem no such slot

2015-09-30 Thread Alexis LE METAYER
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);

Re: [Wireshark-dev] QT wireshark problem no such slot

2015-09-30 Thread Graham Bloice
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?,

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype?

2015-09-30 Thread Guy Harris
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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype?

2015-09-30 Thread Evan Huus
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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Do we still need/want -Wc++-compat?

2015-09-30 Thread Evan Huus
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 >>

[Wireshark-dev] Do we still need/want -Wc++-compat?

2015-09-30 Thread Guy Harris
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

[Wireshark-dev] Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype?

2015-09-30 Thread mmann78
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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Do we still need/want -Wc++-compat?

2015-09-30 Thread Guy Harris
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 >

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype?

2015-09-30 Thread Jeffrey Smith
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

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Should an IPv4 netmask be its own fieldtype?

2015-09-30 Thread Evan Huus
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`? > >