On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:42:02PM +0200, Jakub Zawadzki wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 01:25:41PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 29, 2013, at 1:12 PM, Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames-ws@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Is anyone attached to hf_ variables? ;)
> > >
> > > There's no real need of them, and we can just replace them with
> > > header_field_info structure.
> >
> > I.e., pass a pointer to the relevant structure, rather than an array index into an internal array that can supply that pointer?
>
> Yes.
>
> > I'm not sure there's a compelling reason (other than the effort involved in converting code) to keep the variables.
>
> Being devil's advocate I think there's no good reason to convert it.
> Saving few CPU cycles by not doing:
> - load variable into memory
> - avoid PROTO_REGISTRAR_GET_NTH()
>
> and some cycles on startup + max 2-3 MB less in binary doesn't seems like good deal
> against converting 90% of dissectors codebase :)
If we don't loose functionality, I'd probably like to get rid of the extra
variables (both ett_ and hf_) as it makes coding a bit more convenient.
In the ett_ case: currently expansion is done similarly for all elements
using the same ett variable, how would that be done without these vars?
Can you give a sample diff how a dissector would need to be changed?
Also: What would be the migration plan: All at once or incremental?
Ciao
Jörg
--
Joerg Mayer <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.
