On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Having zero knowledge of the original code here’s some remarks anyway.
>
> @@ -364,7 +370,7 @@ open_input (const char *infile, const char *define)
> if (infile)
> - addarg (infile);
> + addarg (infilename);
> addarg ((char *) NULL);
>
> This must be a general thing then? infile vs. infilename.
>
>
> @@ -1441,6 +1491,7 @@ options_usage (FILE *stream, int status)
> + f_print (stream, _("-T\t\tgenerate code for a Wireshark dissector\n"));
>
> You meant to say _(“-W\t\tgenerate
>
>
>
> +/* @(#)rpc_wireshark.c 1.0 16/09/01
> + *
> + * Copyright to be determined ...
> + *
> + * rpc_wireshark.h, Definitions for the generation of a wireshark
> + * dissector in rpcgen
> + */
>
> You probably meant to say rpc_wireshark.c, Functions for the generation of a wireshark dissector in rpcgen
>
>
>
>
> +" * GENERATED BY RPCGEN. DO NOT DO SERIOUS EDITS.\n"
>
> You might want to add a line stating the Wireshark release (2.0, 2.2, or other) this code is generated for, since the used APIs / includes may depend on it and they may change in the future.
Thanks for those. Yeah, about that last one, while they look pretty
stable, they might change.
I have approached someone on the glibc team about taking the patch,
but they might also not be interested because of potential future
changes to Wireshark, so will have to play that by ear.
If that is the case, perhaps we can add rpcgen (and the source) to
Wireshark as a tool.
--
Regards,
Richard Sharpe
(何以解憂？唯有杜康。--曹操)
