On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 07:11:26PM -0400, Marcus D. Leech wrote: > On 04/26/2010 07:01 PM, Eric Blossom wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 03:26:46PM -0700, Matt Ettus wrote: > > > >> On 04/26/2010 03:19 PM, Marcus D. Leech wrote: > >> > >>> Optional fields, optional packing formats. Rather a nightmare. Doing a > >>> Wireshark parser is going to > >>> be just so much fun :-) > >>> > >> > >> We use a very well defined subset of VRT which makes parsing a lot > >> easier. We don't use class fields, for example. > >> > >> Matt > >> > > FWIW, the code that's already written handles all of the cases > > consistently. It wasn't a big deal. There's a finite set of stuff > > and there's some machine generated code that handles all the optionally > > there/not-there cases. > > > > Eric > > > > > > > Well, perhaps I should look at that code as a dissector core for > Wireshark, then. > > Does it handle the lovely "optimized for wire-format-density vs > optimized-for-machine-processing" wire-format > variabilities?
Currently only handles the "optimized for machine processing" case. Eric _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
