On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Bill Meier <wme...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Specifically: > > For some/many/all? dissectors, the protocol never appears in the > 'protocol' column', isn't in the list of protos, filters for the protocol > don't work. etc etc > > I guess something fails with respect to the > proto_tree_add_item(..., proto_..., ...) call. > > Oddly enough, the actual dissection for the protocol does appear in the > details pane. > > I believe the changes (5460d7f & 3da89d6) should be reverted until they > are properly tested/fixed. > > (When i reverted these two commits to proto.c, things were OK again. > > Bill > OK, yes, this is very strange. The result of that change should be only that we *don't* fake the tree item in certain uncommon cases - it certainly shouldn't be causing wider problems like this. My understanding is that we should be able to, e.g. randomly not fake the tree 10% of the time without causing problems as it is an optimization only, so I'm not sure why adding *any* extra condition at all would break things like this. Is TRY_TO_FAKE_THIS_ITEM ever more than an optimization? Does anyone else know why *not* faking the tree could cause problems?
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
