That sounds like it might be a good idea. Do you have captures where
the col_ API is taking a substantial amount of time?
I expect the most expensive part of the col_ API is probably the
formatting calls, but I'm not sure how we'd cache those. I expect we'd
have to do the formatting immediately and then cache the resulting
string, so I'm not sure how much benefit that would provide over just
formatting in place.
Worth exploring though.
Evan
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 5:20 AM, Anders Broman
<anders.broman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> How about this idea?
>
> Would it be possible to stack the col..() operations and just execute the
> relevant ones to save on CPU? Currently we overwrite the data as we work our
> way through the packet
>
> Until we hit a col_set_fence() then we start to overwrite the stuff after
> the fence again. One problem might be exceptions - other?
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Anders
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
