On 15/06/21 05:02, João Valverde via Wireshark-dev wrote:
On 14/06/21 22:01, Martin Nyhus wrote:
On 05/06/2021 02:33, João Valverde wrote:
But regarding your PoC having to give extern linkage to the internal
dissector code is a big drawback IMO, even if it isn't visible in a DLL
(because we
On 14/06/21 22:01, Martin Nyhus wrote:
On 05/06/2021 02:33, João Valverde wrote:
But regarding your PoC having to give extern linkage to the internal
dissector code is a big drawback IMO, even if it isn't visible in a DLL
(because we use default hidden visibility when the compiler supports it)
On 05/06/2021 02:33, João Valverde wrote:
> But regarding your PoC having to give extern linkage to the internal
> dissector code is a big drawback IMO, even if it isn't visible in a DLL
> (because we use default hidden visibility when the compiler supports it).
>
> Maybe that could be solved by in
Hi Martin,
This is promising. I think dissecting a TVB and walking the proto_tree
to assert the result is probably the way to go about implementing a
dissector test suite (instead of reading a pcap with tshark and grepping
the output).
But regarding your PoC having to give extern linkage to
Hi,
since the happy-shark discussion died out I've been looking at other
ways of adding test coverage for some bug fixes I've been preparing to
push, and right now the idea is to add a new unit test suite based on
wmem_test for dissector code. I think this should solve the concern that
was mentione
