[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:
essage-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LEGO
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:33 PM
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] COPY_ADDRESS and g_malloc()
>
> may be we should have EP_COPY_ADDRESS, SE_COPY_ADD
I have got the same idea meantime.
T.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LEGO
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:33 PM
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] COPY_ADDRESS and g_malloc()
may be we should have
may be we should have EP_COPY_ADDRESS, SE_COPY_ADDRESS and
PE_COPY_ADDRESS instead.
On 11/13/06, Kukosa, Tomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> does not it make sence to change g_malloc() in COPY_ADDRESS to
> se_alloc() ?
> It seems that it is not freed in most cases of usage.
> Do wee need
Hi,
does not it make sence to change g_malloc() in COPY_ADDRESS to
se_alloc() ?
It seems that it is not freed in most cases of usage.
Do wee need anywhere longer lifetime then se_alloc() has?
Tomas
___
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wires
