2015-11-30 20:15 GMT+01:00 Guy Harris <g...@alum.mit.edu>: > > On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Pascal Quantin <pascal.quan...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > 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). > > Unless there's some compelling reason for them *not* to be in a dynamic > library, I think making libcodec a dynamic library 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?). > > Making it a dynamic library wouldn't change the API. >
Done: https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/12385/1
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
