On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/10/13 18:22, Evan Huus wrote: >> >> It might be simpler and almost as efficient to have >> recently-successful heuristic dissectors bubble nearer to the top of >> the list so they are tried sooner. Port/conversation lookups are >> hash-tables for the most part and likely won't be made noticeably >> faster by caching. > > > Wouldn't that expose us to the risk that the dissection actually changes on > the 2nd pass (because the call order of the heuristics changes)? That would > look pretty weird...
Only if two heuristics match the same packet, which is, theoretically, a bug since they can't both be right. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
