Re: tools/check[hf|APIs|filtername].pl need updating?

[Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws () gmail com>]

[For completeness of this thread] Peter took care of checkAPIs in
https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/29754/ .

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 11:03 AM Maynard, Chris <Christopher.Maynard () igt com>
wrote:

> I'm not sure if anyone is waiting for my feedback, but just in case ...
>
> I'm not against Jakub's changes.  There are benefits as he mentioned,
> particularly with the idea of auto-registration.  The current problem as I
> see it is that in its current state, the check*.pl tools won't catch
> problems (such as the one I illustrated) like they used to be able to do.
>
> It would be great if all dissectors were converted to use the new API and
> then fields were auto-registered and  then all #ifndef
> HAVE_HFI_SECTION_INIT ... #endif blocks could be removed.  Of course that's
> a large task, so in the interim, maybe it's possible for the check*.pl
> tools to be updated to catch missing/duplicate/etc. entries in the hfi[]
> arrays?  Otherwise, the more dissectors that are written this way, the
> greater the chance of errors being introduced but not being caught by the
> tools.
>
> Thoughts?
> - Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wireshark-dev [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org] On
> Behalf Of Michal Labedzki
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 8:39 AM
> To: Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagoutte () gmail com>; Developer support list
> for Wireshark <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] tools/check[hf|APIs|filtername].pl need
> updating?
>
> I want to convert all Bluetooth dissectors to new proto tree API. Is it a
> good idea?
>
> wt., 18 wrz 2018 o 18:23 Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagoutte () gmail com>
> napisał(a):
> > 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-ws () 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is the property of International Game
> Technology PLC and/or its subsidiaries and may contain proprietary,
> confidential or trade secret information.  This message is intended solely
> for the use of the addressee.  If you are not the intended recipient and
> have received this message in error, please delete this message from your
> system. Any unauthorized reading, distribution, copying, or other use of
> this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> 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
___________________________________________________________________________
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