Huge thanks to our Platinum Members Endace and LiveAction,
and our Silver Member Veeam, for supporting the Wireshark Foundation and project.

Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] RFC: sorted value_string + bsearch

From: Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:54:08 +0200
On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 04:18:40PM +0200, Anders Broman wrote:
> +const gchar*
> +match_strval_fast(const guint32 val, const value_string_fast *vs) {
> +  guint low, idx, max;
> +  guint32 item;
> +  if(vs) {
> +       switch(vs->match_type){
> +               case VS_SEARCH:
> +                       match_strval( val, vs->vals);
> +                       break;
> +               case VS_INDEX:
> +                       return vs->vals[val].strptr;

I think you need: 
	return (val < vs->length) ? vs->vals[val].strptr : NULL;

anyway sorry, but I dislike your idea :)

I would prefer other function or even macro:

#define match_strval_hyper_fast(val, vs) \
	(val >= 0 && val < array_length(vs) && vs[val].val == val) ? \
		vs[val].strptr : match_strval(val, vs) /* fallback (?) */


>> I think this is a good idea, but it obviously requires the value string  array to be properly sorted for it to work well.
>> And the bigger the array, the more enticing it would be to use this faster method, but I think it will also be potentially harder to ensure that those bigger arrays are indeed properly sorted.
>> Developers are bound to make mistakes, especially with the very large arrays, and as other developers add new entries, they may not know that a particular array is supposed to be sorted, and even if they do, there's no guarantee that a properly sorted array will remain so.

Can't we do this check in tmp_fld_check_assert()?
I think most of value_strings are registered...