Re: The recent changes to proto.c appear to have broken things badly ...

[Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com>]

On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Bill Meier <wmeier () 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-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe