Thanks Jakub for historic

I think a good idea is revert to use "standard" API
or write a tools for convert old dissector to new API...

Cheers

On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 6:05 PM Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames...@darkjames.pl>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> W dniu 2018-09-18 16:56, Maynard, Chris napisał(a):
> > While investigating the transum-related crash, I had suspected some
> > unregistered hf's and ran the various tools like checkhf.pl.  I then
> > noticed that a number of dissectors seemed to have changed a bit from
> > what I was used to before (...)
>
> These changes are quite old. For udp I did it in Aug 2013
> (88eaebaedf2e19c493ea696f633463e4f2a9a757).
>
> some wireshark-dev threads:
>   - https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201307/msg00222.html
>   - thread continuation:
> https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201308/msg00035.html
>
> Nobody stopped me that time.
>
> > And I guess I missed the reasoning behind the restructuring, but what
> > is the purpose/benefit of this restructuring
>
> To sum up:
>
> Restructuring idea was to remove usage of int hf_foo, so you would need
> only to declare header_field_info hfi_foo (unfortunate, you still need
> to do it on top of file).
>
> Benefit is no more ints, so:
>   - proto_tree_ api checks if you passed header_field_info structure,
>   - You don't need to declare int hf_foo = -1; (bonus: binary size
> smaller 4 bytes per hf),
>   - no need for table lookup in proto_tree_add_*
>
> > and use of HAVE_HFI_SECTION_INIT?
>
> Idea was that HFI_INIT(proto_bar) would put all protocol hfi's into
> single binary section. This way wireshark could auto-register these
> fields
> without need of some indirect array (bonus: binary size smaller by
> sizeof(void *) per hfi).
>
>
> After 5 years simple grep shows that only 36 dissectors are using
> NEW_PROTO_TREE_API, so it seems that this API is not well known or not
> liked.
> If it makes problem I would suggest to drop it.
>
> Alexis suggested the same in 2015:
> https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201508/msg00087.html
>
>
> Jakub.
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
> Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>              mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to