Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] ntohl(), pntohl(), g_ntohl() ?

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

Date Index Thread Index Other Months All Mailing Lists
Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next
From: Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 09:51:01 -0700
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.