On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 08:48:32PM +0200, M?she Van der Sterre wrote:
> On 5/20/07, Joerg Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I will apply the modified patch once I've fixed the remaining warnings
> > (probably in 2-3 hours). I really prefer the version without the macros,
> > esecially as I need
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 08:48:32PM +0200, M??she Van der Sterre wrote:
> Do you flag these parameters with something like
> "__attribute__((unused))"? If so, I'll think about that in the future.
We flag them with _U_, which on gcc is defined to be
__attribute__((unused)) in Wireshark builds.
On 5/20/07, Joerg Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I will apply the modified patch once I've fixed the remaining warnings
> (probably in 2-3 hours). I really prefer the version without the macros,
> esecially as I need to flag several function parameters as unused.
Ok.
Do you flag these paramete
I will apply the modified patch once I've fixed the remaining warnings
(probably in 2-3 hours). I really prefer the version without the macros,
esecially as I need to flag several function parameters as unused.
ciao
Joerg
--
Joerg Mayer <[EMAIL PR
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 06:50:10PM +0200, M?she Van der Sterre wrote:
> Here is a new patch.
> If someone has anything to comment on it, please do so.
It looks good but for one major and one minor thing:
Major:
+#define HANDLE_FUNC_TYPE int
+#define HANDLE_FUNC_PARAMS tvbuff_t *tvb, pac
On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 01:11:08AM +0200, M??she Van der Sterre wrote:
> Ok. The stuff commented with C++ comments are mostly stubs for packet
> types I did not yet implement. I forgot delete replace them before
> generating the patch. I'll try to implement all opcodes for the next
> patch. I m
On 5/8/07, Stephen Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:45:57PM +0200, M??she Van der Sterre wrote:
>
> > As far as I know this dissector conforms to the usual way things are
> > done with wireshark. But I like to hear about anything I missed, or
> > should have done anoth
On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:45:57PM +0200, M??she Van der Sterre wrote:
> As far as I know this dissector conforms to the usual way things are
> done with wireshark. But I like to hear about anything I missed, or
> should have done another way.
With only a quick glance, I noticed some C++ style
A small fix to prevent freezing on a loop. Sorry for this.
Anyway, as I said, it is not yet finished, but I like to get some
response to the code (to prevent myself from useless coding ;) ).
--- packet-gdsdb.c
+++ packet-gdsdb.c
@@ -723,7 +723,7 @@
proto_tree_add_item(tree, hf_gdsd
Here is the dissector I mentioned before.
Most opcodes are not yet implemented, but the dissector is in a
usefull state already.
We need it for a tshark running 24/7:
tshark -i eth0 -R gdsdb.prepare.statement
So we will be able to monitor an external application using the database.
As far as I k
10 matches
Mail list logo
