Jeff Morriss wrote:
>Jakub Zawadzki wrote:
>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 05:10:09PM +0100, Martin Mathieson wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Jakub Zawadzki <nospam> wrote:
>>>> This patch is OK for me.
>>> I didn't measure, but it didn't noticibly add to the startup time
>>
>> This O(n^2) loop sucks a little, you can optimized it with some hashing
>> or bit-setting/checking.
>> But really please don't care about startup-time. It's not so important.
>
>Well, I'd disagree with startup time not being important... :-) I
>sometimes start Wireshark many times a day, sometimes on not-very-fast
>SPARCs.
Speaking of more limited platforms, I wonder about about a way of reducing both startup time and memory usage by having the dissectors dynamically loaded (as with the current plug-in mechanism) rather than statically linked. The current model of adding all dissectors to the main code means that Wireshark will keep getting bigger and bigger. I wonder if it might not be time to ponder if that's the best possible option.
Ed
