Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Interesting thing about "recent" changes in GHashTable
From: Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames-ws () darkjames pl>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 18:52:22 +0200
Hi, On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 06:15:28PM -0400, Evan Huus wrote:
Not worth it in my opinion unless the memory savings are significant (I suspect they are only in the range of a few-hundred KB).
Yes, something like this. Exact numbers for few: proto_names 21KB 3 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) registered_dissectors 8KB 41 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) eth_hashtable 6KB 51 insertions(+), 76 deletions(-) manuf_hashtable 262KB 64 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) sub_dissectors 40KB 46 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) 338 KB in total. (test patches: http://www.wireshark.org/~darkjames/ghashtable-set/) ___________________________________________________________________________ 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-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Interesting thing about "recent" changes in GHashTable Jakub Zawadzki (Aug 13)
- Re: Interesting thing about "recent" changes in GHashTable Evan Huus (Aug 13)
- Re: Interesting thing about "recent" changes in GHashTable Jakub Zawadzki (Aug 13)
- Re: Interesting thing about "recent" changes in GHashTable Evan Huus (Aug 13)
- Re: Interesting thing about "recent" changes in GHashTable Jakub Zawadzki (Aug 14)
- Re: Interesting thing about "recent" changes in GHashTable Jakub Zawadzki (Aug 13)
- Re: Interesting thing about "recent" changes in GHashTable Evan Huus (Aug 13)