Bill Meier wrote: > Jakub Zawadzki wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 02:00:44PM -0400, Bill Meier wrote: >>> Anders Broman wrote: >>>> Is the script "fixed" to fill out any "holes" in the list with "unasigned"? >>>> That would be the most efficent use...
>>> If I do this, match_strval() against the sminmpec list will no longer >>> return NULL for a "missing" entry (other than "past the end"). >> Can we use NULLs instead of 'unasigned'? >> >> All value_string_match_t functions (except of _match_strval_linear(), which >> is just wrapper to match_strval()) >> are using vs->length already. >> >> It might not work when wireshark want to iterate through values. > > I considered using NULL, but came to the conclusion that > match_strval_ext doing a linear search could/would terminate early > because of the NULL (which is what I think you are saying above). > > However: I think you're on the right track: for "extended" value strings > I'll just create a version of the linear match which uses vs->length > instead of checking for NULL. > I decided to use "(Unknown)" instead of NULL for the string value for entries used to fill "gaps" in sminmpec. The main reason: there's code that assumes that value_strings (even those referenced by value_string_ext) end with a NULL strptr. I could have changed that code when dealing with value_string_ext, but decided I shouldn't change the (long standing) semantics of value_strings. If the use of "(Unknown)" to fill in the gaps for sminmpec proves to be a problem for some reason, reverting will just cause a binary search to be used which isn't really a problem. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
