https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16655
--- Comment #2 from Tomasz Mon <deso...@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Guy Harris from comment #1)
> Is the problem here just that we produce a ton of dissector "bug" reports
> where the "bug" is "we haven't implemented reassembly yet"?
Yes, I just wanted some "fail early" mechanism to make it clear to the user,
that the packets beginning from this one are very likely to get out of sync. I
didn't realise this would result in buildbot crash reports.
> If so, the "fix" for the "bug" should probably either be
>
> 1) implement reassembly
That's the proper solution.
> 2) don't treat it as a "bug" reported with REPORT_DISSECTOR_BUG(), treat it
> as a "not implemented yet" reported with the expert info routines using
> PI_UNDECODED (which should perhaps be renamed PI_UNIMPLEMENTED, as this
> isn't a case of "we're not decoding this field", it's a case of "we're not
> reassembling packets").
Or have some abort dissection macro similar to REPORT_DISSECTOR_BUG() that
would not trigger a buildbot report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-bugs mailing list <wireshark-bugs@wireshark.org>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-bugs
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-bugs
mailto:wireshark-bugs-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
