Thanks Harris..The reply was extremely helpful. On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Guy Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Oct 23, 2011, at 12:31 AM, Krishnamurthy Mayya wrote: > > > packet-mpls.c: In function ‘dissect_pw_ach’: > > packet-mpls.c:389: error: implicit declaration of function ‘printf’ > > packet-mpls.c:389: error: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in > function ‘printf’ > > If you are using printf() (which I hope you're only using for debugging > purposes, as dissectors shouldn't print stuff to the standard output or > error - the user might never see it), you must include <stdio.h>. > > > packet-mpls.c: In function ‘dissect_pw_ach_mplstp’: > > packet-mpls.c:1069: error: implicit declaration of function > ‘dissect_bfd_control’ > > The only dissect_bfd_control() in the Wireshark source is in > epan/dissectors/packet-bfd.c, and it's static. If your changes to the MPLS > dissector require that dissect_bfd_control() to be called, you will need to: > > make it *not* static; > > create an epan/dissectors/packet-bfd.h file that includes a > declaration of dissect_bfd_control(); > > include that file in both epan/dissectors/packet-bfd.c and > epan/dissectors/packet-mpls.c. > > > packet-mpls.c:1096: error: implicit declaration of function > ‘dissect_mpls_echo’ > > That's presumably a function you've written. If it's not used outside > epan/dissectors/packet-mpls.c, make it static and, if it's called before > it's defined, put a forward declaration of it before the first call. > > > Any idea about what might have gone wrong?? > > You failed to arrange that functions be declared before they were called. > > > The most confusing fact is another line that appears above these error > codes: cc1: warnings being treated as errors > > That means, as Richard van der Hoff indicated, that our build procedure > configures the compiler to, if possible, treat warnings as errors and to > cause the compile to fail, so that the errors have to be fixed. Most > warnings are, in fact, errors in that they represent incorrect code, even if > they happen to be valid C code in the sense that they don't violate the C > language specification. > > > So we dont know whether these are really errors or warnings treated as > errors. > > You should not care whether really errors or warnings treated as errors; > you should fix them in either case. > > > If errors, all kinds of suggestions are welcome. > > See above. > ___________________________________________________________________________ > 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 >
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
