On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 05:18:56PM +0200, Kovarththanan Rajaratnam wrote:
> How about we generalize this to -Pn hvor 'n' can be any number? This
> would allow us to do some basic memleak testing by setting 'n' to a
> large value.
Sounds like a really good idea!
Ciao
Joerg
--
Joerg Mayer
Joerg Mayer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 07:28:01PM +, k...@wireshark.org wrote:
>> http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=30076
>>
>> User: krj
>> Date: 2009/09/22 12:28 PM
>>
>> Log:
>> Add initial support for "two pass analysis" in tshark. This allows tshark
>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:19:03PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Joerg Mayer wrote:
>
> > How about making -P a numbered option like -P1 and -P2 and then add
> > a -P1 option to wireshark as well,
>
> What would a -P1 option do in Wireshark?
single pass, just like ts
On Sep 22, 2009, at 9:13 PM, Joerg Mayer wrote:
> How about making -P a numbered option like -P1 and -P2 and then add
> a -P1 option to wireshark as well,
What would a -P1 option do in Wireshark?
___
Sent via:Wireshark-d
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 07:28:01PM +, k...@wireshark.org wrote:
> http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=30076
>
> User: krj
> Date: 2009/09/22 12:28 PM
>
> Log:
> Add initial support for "two pass analysis" in tshark. This allows tshark to
> arrive at the same pro
