Does this mean that all proto_tree_add_* calls would need to have &hf_name instead of just hf_name?
I'm not attached to them in principle (and getting rid of them seems like it would be a performance/memory win) but your description is awfully vague... On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames...@darkjames.pl> wrote: > Hi, > > Is anyone attached to hf_ variables? ;) > > There's no real need of them, and we can just replace them with > header_field_info structure. > ___________________________________________________________________________ > 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 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
