Re: Undissected packet bytes

[Dario Lombardo <dario.lombardo.ml () gmail com>]

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Evan Huus <eapache () 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-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe