Bill Meier wrote:
On 9/15/2012 4:35 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
The obvious solution for now is to remove the comments that are
getting falsely picked up as function definitions, but the better fix
is to the make-dissector-reg scripts. Is it valid for there to be two
register functions in a file, or
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 01:39:41PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
On Sep 16, 2012, at 12:49 AM, Joerg Mayer jma...@loplof.de wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 03:44:59PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
My understanding of dissectors registering to port 0 was simply a method
for
allowing Decode As to
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 03:44:59PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
My understanding of dissectors registering to port 0 was simply a method for
allowing Decode As to work.
The right way for a dissector to say I run atop {TCP,UDP,...} but I don't
have a standard port number, so use Decode As...
On Sep 16, 2012, at 12:49 AM, Joerg Mayer jma...@loplof.de wrote:
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 03:44:59PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
My understanding of dissectors registering to port 0 was simply a method for
allowing Decode As to work.
The right way for a dissector to say I run atop
Evan Huus eapache@... writes:
A couple of problems here:
- When two protocols register with the same uint value in a table, the
second one just overwrites the first.
If the first one is disabled, I'd say that's OK, but if not, then maybe the
better thing to do is not to register the new
Evan Huus eapache@... writes:
There is already a (commented-out) function called
dissector_add_uint_sanity_check which does warn on duplicate port
registrations and on registrations to port 0. It produces 157 warnings
when enabled in the default build. I don't know how many duplicate
string
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Christopher Maynard
christopher.mayn...@gtech.com wrote:
Evan Huus eapache@... writes:
There is already a (commented-out) function called
dissector_add_uint_sanity_check which does warn on duplicate port
registrations and on registrations to port 0. It
On 9/15/2012 4:35 PM, Evan Huus wrote:
The obvious solution for now is to remove the comments that are
getting falsely picked up as function definitions, but the better fix
is to the make-dissector-reg scripts. Is it valid for there to be two
register functions in a file, or could the scripts
On Sep 15, 2012, at 10:33 AM, Christopher Maynard
christopher.mayn...@gtech.com wrote:
My understanding of dissectors registering to port 0 was simply a method for
allowing Decode As to work.
The right way for a dissector to say I run atop {TCP,UDP,...} but I don't have
a standard port
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Evan Huus eapa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Maynard, Chris
christopher.mayn...@gtech.com wrote:
Recently another old proprietary protocol (I’ll call it FOO) was brought to
my attention, and I was asked to write a dissector for it. In
Recently another old proprietary protocol (I'll call it FOO) was brought to my
attention, and I was asked to write a dissector for it. In doing so, I
discovered a conflict with another dissector, namely SNA. Initially I thought
that simply disabling SNA when analyzing FOO would be good enough
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Maynard, Chris
christopher.mayn...@gtech.com wrote:
Recently another old proprietary protocol (I’ll call it FOO) was brought to
my attention, and I was asked to write a dissector for it. In doing so, I
discovered a conflict with another dissector, namely SNA.
12 matches
Mail list logo
