On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 05:10:09PM +0100, Martin Mathieson wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Jakub Zawadzki <nospam> wrote: > > This patch is OK for me. > > I didn't measure, but it didn't noticibly add to the startup time
This O(n^2) loop sucks a little, you can optimized it with some hashing or bit-setting/checking. But really please don't care about startup-time. It's not so important. > probably not many non-developers run wireshark that way though. > I wasn't planning on submitting it in its current form. I think non-developers really don't care about whole tmp_fld_check_assert() check, so one extra is good (and yours patch is really cool). tmp_fld_check_assert() probably should be #ifdef-ed in some MAINTAINER_BUILD (or #ifndef RELEASE_BUILD) ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
