On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 09:16:48AM -0500, Jeff Morriss wrote: > Joerg Mayer wrote: > [...] >> So more than half of all the stuff is added by using proto_tree_add_text. >> As long as the ratio is that way, people are likely to continue using it >> inside this dissector. >> Any volunteer(s) to get this down to some sane level by replacing it by >> proto_tree_add_item and adding hf_ entries where possible to make these >> Elements filterable? >> >> Should something like the above check be added to one of the check scripts >> to complain if the add_text percentage is above 10% or so? > > Done in r40930
Good! > though there's a lot of dissectors with the problem so I > chose 50% as the warning level for now. Makes sense. > And the code isn't super fast either. Why three loops: Just have one for proto_tree_add_[a-z]+. Use this for totals and if there is a match, check whether is is proto_tree_add_text and if it is, check for for var = proto_tree_add_text. That should be "good enough" (or do we loose lots of multiline machtes by this). > So it's commented out for now. Maybe another command line > option is in order? Yes, I think it is anyway. ciao Jörg -- Joerg Mayer <jma...@loplof.de> We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
