On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 09:27:19AM +0200, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
> Thanks. Follow up question, on performance:
> Which method is preferable:
> (1)
>
> struct some_hdr hdr;
> tvb_memcpy(tvb, (guint8 *)&hdr, offset, sizeof(hdr));
> proto_tree_add_X(...,hdr.a);
> proto_tree_add_Y(...,hdr.b);
>
> -or-
>
> (2)
>
> struct some_hdr hdr;
> hdr.a = tvb_get_X();
> hdr.b = tvb_get_Y();
> proto_tree_add_X(...,hdr.a);
> proto_tree_add_Y(...,hdr.b);
I prefer neither of those.
I prefer
(3)
a = tvb_get_X();
proto_tree_add_X(...,a);
b = tvb_get_Y();
proto_tree_add_Y(...,b);
or
(4)
proto_tree_add_item(...);
proto_tree_add_item(...);
which address the issue I mentioned earlier, of "short" packets - i.e.,
don't require that field "b" exist in order to put field "a" into the
tree.
