Not worth it in my opinion unless the memory savings are significant (I suspect they are only in the range of a few-hundred KB).
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames...@darkjames.pl>wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 01:12:18PM -0400, Evan Huus wrote: > > Anyone building with a new enough glib will get this behaviour for free? > So > > I don't think it's worth backporting to older builds unless the memory > > savings are really significant... > > I don't want to backport it, I was thinking about using it. > > for example 'registered_dissectors' from packet.c: > > Right now we have: > > 2018 g_hash_table_insert(registered_dissectors, (gpointer)name, > 2019 (gpointer) handle); > > but name is also accessible by handle > > 2013 handle->name = name; > > so we could do: > g_hash_table_insert(registered_dissectors, handle, handle); > > but it'd requires some changes: > - for hash function, g_str_hash() can't be called directly, but new > function with just g_str_hash(handle->name) > - for lookup code (find_dissector()) > instead of simple: > g_hash_table_lookup(registered_dissectors, name); > > we'd need to do: > dissector_handle_t temp; > > temp.name = name; > g_hash_table_lookup(registered_dissectors, &temp); > > the second part is this 'hacky' thing. > ___________________________________________________________________________ > 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
