Jeff Morriss wrote: >Jakub Zawadzki wrote: >> 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. > >Well, I'd disagree with startup time not being important... :-) I >sometimes start Wireshark many times a day, sometimes on not-very-fast >SPARCs.
Speaking of more limited platforms, I wonder about about a way of reducing both startup time and memory usage by having the dissectors dynamically loaded (as with the current plug-in mechanism) rather than statically linked. The current model of adding all dissectors to the main code means that Wireshark will keep getting bigger and bigger. I wonder if it might not be time to ponder if that's the best possible option. Ed ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
