Le 30 nov. 2015 8:01 PM, "Guy Harris" <g...@alum.mit.edu> a écrit : > > > On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:40 AM, Pascal Quantin <pascal.quan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Should we move codecs functions to one of the existing libraries? Or add it to its own? > > They already *are* in their own library, but it's a static library, not a dynamic library; perhaps we should just make libcodec a dynamic library, and export functions from it with WS_DLL_PUBLIC. >
Yes I should have been clearer in my initial description. My suggestion with an extra parameter giving the hash table address is also working fine, so I do not have a strong feeling either way (the changed parameter is faster to do but might not be the best long term solution). If possible I would like to have this fixed for Wireshark 2.0.1 but I wonder if such change is compatible with our usual policy to keep APIs constant (does it apply when they are buggy?). Pascal.
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
