Hi Luis, Anders,
I was initially looking at using tap info from sdp:
tap_id = find_tap_id(sdp);
if (tap_id){
if (check_col(pinfo-cinfo, COL_INFO) ) {
col_add_fstr( pinfo-cinfo, COL_INFO, SDP tap found);
Hi Anders,
ok I will start working on this then. Thanks for a prompt reply.
Regards,
Jorge Sanchez
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Anders Broman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
The dissector was written by Olivier Biot and hasn't been seeing much
change latly I think.
You are welcome to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=revrevision=25170
User: etxrab
Date: 2008/04/24 11:42 PM
Log:
Flex (v 2.5.35) uses this symbol to exclude unistd.h
Directory: /trunk/
ChangesPath Action
+5 -0 config.h.win32
Hi,
Sorry 'bout that but I thought I'd commit my small contribution to get it out
of the way...
Regards
Anders
Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED] genom Bill Meier
Skickat: fr 2008-04-25 14:36
Till: wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
Ämne: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits]
Perhaps the more sensible approach (although this becomes protocol specific)
is to follow example code in SDP where RTP parameters are found and made
available to the RTP dissector. Just as the RTP dissection window shows
Stream setup bu SDP (frame x)] and then the relevant information. The
Hello everybody,
I've read on the wiki that the installation of an development environment as
mentioned in the developer's guide doesn't work. Is it right or not?
Is it possible? And how?
Thanks in advance
Julien
___
Wireshark-dev mailing
Hi,
Eh what? It is supposed to work. What wiki page are you referring too?
Thanx,
Jaap
Auvray Julien wrote:
Hello everybody,
I’ve read on the wiki that the installation of an development
environment as mentioned in the developer’s guide doesn’t work. Is it
right or not?
Is it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Log:
Fixed some old problems found while starting to add R7 support.
+186 -33 packet-umts_fp.cModified
I expect that the next buildbot Windows compile of packet-umts_fp will
fail (since it does on my Windows system):
packet-umts_fp.c(861) : warning
Bill Meier wrote:
I expect that the next buildbot Windows compile of packet-umts_fp will
fail (since it does on my Windows system):
packet-umts_fp.c(861) : warning C4244: 'function' : conversion from
'unsigned __int64 ' to 'unsigned int ', possible
s of data
Generating Code...
NMAKE :
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Guy Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Meier wrote:
I expect that the next buildbot Windows compile of packet-umts_fp will
fail (since it does on my Windows system):
packet-umts_fp.c(861) : warning C4244: 'function' : conversion from
'unsigned
Hello
I'm following the Win32 step-by-step guide in developer's guide. I repeat
the guide on 3 different Win XPs and get the same build error. The last PC
has Windows freshly installed. I've searched around the mailing list but
haven't found a solution. I get the following errors when doing nmake
Hi,
I think you been bitten by this bug:
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2493
Thanx,
Jaap
net dude wrote:
Hello
I'm following the Win32 step-by-step guide in developer's guide. I
repeat the guide on 3 different Win XPs and get the same build error.
The last PC has
Jaap Keuter wrote:
Hi,
I think you been bitten by this bug:
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2493
Unfortunately this is a problem related to the use of cygwin flex 2.5.35
which was very recently noticed.
Please see
Martin Mathieson wrote:
Does anyone know of a gcc flag we can add to catch cases like this? It
(obviously) compiled clean on my work machine.
I have a vague memory that newer versions of GCC (4.2? 4.3?) might have
a -W flag to catch implicit narrowing conversations, but I didn't see
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=revrevision=25108
User: stig
Date: 2008/04/17 11:14 PM
Log:
Added an option to display hidden protocol items.
Should this be an item in the View menu, and saved in the recent file?
Are there any other
Guy Harris wrote:
Martin Mathieson wrote:
Does anyone know of a gcc flag we can add to catch cases like this? It
(obviously) compiled clean on my work machine.
I have a vague memory that newer versions of GCC (4.2? 4.3?) might have
a -W flag to catch implicit narrowing
The Buildbot has detected a new failure of Windows-XP-x86 on Wireshark
(development).
Full details are available at:
http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/Windows-XP-x86/builds/4281
Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.wireshark.org/trunk/
Buildslave for this Build: windows-xp-x86
Build Reason:
Build
Jaap
Tried gnuwin32 flex according comment #15 and it works flawlessly.
Thanks!
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Bill Meier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jaap Keuter wrote:
Hi,
I think you been bitten by this bug:
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2493
Unfortunately
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Jeff Morriss
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guy Harris wrote:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wychen/cs261/proposal.htm
If Figure 1 is really a problem then my understanding of C just went out
the window...
I wouldn't have got this by myself without the
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Luis EG Ontanon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:17 PM, Jeff Morriss
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Guy Harris wrote:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wychen/cs261/proposal.htmhttp://www.cs.berkeley.edu/%7Ewychen/cs261/proposal.htm
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 3:34 AM, Jeff Morriss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I get what he's saying but I just don't get it: why would the compiler
convert from int to unsigned short *before* it has to send the value into
the call to dowork()? E.g., 'x' should be an int until I (explicitly or
Does this help - in particular the read_from_network() function and
comments I added?
- Chris
#include stdio.h
#include stdlib.h
typedef unsigned short uid_t;
static void dowork(uid_t u);
static int read_from_network(void);
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int x;
22 matches
Mail list logo
