Hi Chris, Thus wrote Chris Maynard (chris.mayn...@gtech.com):
> Martin Kaiser <lists@...> writes: > > I was wondering why we need a static buffer at all. It looks like the > > intention is to keep using the same buffer for each option that we > > parse. When reading an option, how about checking the length first and > > then allocating the buffer dynamically? We could then remove the > > g_strdup() as well and use the allocated buffer to pass the option on to > > wiretap etc. > Your suggestion sounds good to me. > > My understandig is that g_strdup() allocates a copy that the caller must > > free. I don't think that at the moment, anybody is freeing the copy for > > the comment (or for any other option). > If there's a leak, then that should be fixed. Care to open a bug report and > submit a patch? sure, I'll look into this. I hope that at FOSDEM, we can discuss my proposed approach for getting the comment from pcapng->wiretap->capture_file, see https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3096 Once we've agreed on a way forward, I'll see how the g_strdup()s can be replaced. Best regards, Martin ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
