On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss...@gmail.com> wrote: > Evan Huus wrote: >> >> The usage might look something like this: >> >> wmem_allocator_t *ep_scope = wmem_create_glib_allocator(); >> doWork(ep_scope); >> wmem_destroy_glib_allocator(ep_scope); >> >> and then in doWork, instead of ep_alloc(numBytes) you would call >> wmem_alloc(ep_scope, numBytes). > > > Hopefully stupid question (without having had time to look at the code): > does that mean passing ep_scope all the way down to the dissectors and where > they do their allocations?
Unfortunately, yes. You'd have an se_scope as well (and potentially others) so they'd probably be wrapped up in a single `scopes` object, but it does mean one more parameter to pass around. > I hope not; it's been a pain just to get pinfo > all the way down into some of the routines (for expert infos). I know, but I don't know that there's a nice way around it. On that thought: since the amount of packet-related data keeps growing, might it be worth the effort to wrap all the current parameters (tvbuff, pinfo, tree, etc.) into a single 'dissect-me' struct to pass around? I know it's not really good style in a lot of ways, but it would make it a lot easier to expose new things to dissectors and automatically have them available in all of the internal functions. Evan ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
