On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:07 AM, Pascal Quantin <pascal.quan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes I should have been clearer in my initial description. > My suggestion with an extra parameter giving the hash table address is also > working fine, so I do not have a strong feeling either way (the changed > parameter is faster to do but might not be the best long term solution). Unless there's some compelling reason for them *not* to be in a dynamic library, I think making libcodec a dynamic library the best long-term solution. > If possible I would like to have this fixed for Wireshark 2.0.1 but I wonder > if such change is compatible with our usual policy to keep APIs constant > (does it apply when they are buggy?). Making it a dynamic library wouldn't change the API. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
