On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Evan Huus <eapa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > As a side note, I would expect that method to be *very* slow, since it > traverses the entire tree for every byte of the packet. Traversing the > tree once and maintaining a set of covered/uncovered ranges would be > much more efficient. >
I can't figure out how to traverse the tree once.
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
