Re: Retrieving dissection result from another dissector

[Dario Lombardo <lomato () gmail com>]

On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:49 PM Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu> wrote:

> Should we, instead, get rid of the scope arguments to those functions and,
> instead, have separate functions, one of which serves the original purpose,
> using file scope, and one of which serves this new purpose, using
> pinfo->pool scope?
It looks neat, but I see 2 issues:

1) grep -r  "p_\(add\|get\|remove\)_proto_data" ../epan/dissectors/* | wc
-l gives me 881 calls to those functions. It could be harsh to change all
of them as well as breaking compatibility with existing code outside
wireshark (plugins?).

2) are we sure that a call to (eg.)
p_proto_add_data_with_file_scope_or_another_name() is more meaningful than
p_proto_add_data(wmem_file_scope(), ...)? How could those 2 functions be
named to recall the actual goal?

___________________________________________________________________________
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-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe