Hi, On Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:20:50 +0100, Anders Broman wrote > > I have a very rough first patch from our version working with current svn. > Sounds interesting, why not attach it to a bug report even in it's > rough state? I had some vauge idea to use the "ignore packet flag"
cf https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=9366 need a lot of cleaning but it works for some meaning of work... > > call_dissector(next_dissector) > > Why do we need to know if a dissector has sub dissectors? What if we > kept a Gslist of all protocol handles in a > frame, much like the "protocols string" but always populated on the > first pass one could then match (some) filters > against that list before deciding if the frame should be dissected > or not. IIRC the list is too big but it's a long time ago and it could be ok now. > > >When compiling wireshark it's also extract which dissectors don't call > >subdissectors or only call them via wireshark API > > If this is similar to a previous patch it requres changes to many > dissectors. > They was a lot of thing in this patch :) Regards Didier ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
