Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] ew function(s) proto_tree_new_item_get_val_..()

[Anders Broman <a.broman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jaap Keuter skrev 2011-01-12 22:42:
> Hi,
>
> Oke, so now the reason is CPU cycles. Show the profiling; is it 
> *really* worth it? There was a recent thread around tvb_get_ptr() as 
> being far more efficient. Profiling disproved that.
? speed was the whole point. Unfortunately I'm not sure how to profile 
it. But if no one thinks it's
a good idea I'll drop it.
> I stand by keeping your API orthogonal and clean.
What's orthogonal?
Regards
Anders
> Thanks,
> Jaap
>
>
> On 01/12/2011 10:29 PM, Anders Broman wrote:
> > Jaap Keuter skrev 2011-01-12 22:04:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > -1.
> > >
> > > It adds bloat to the API, adding noting really.
> > Well if you have
> > oct = tvb_get_guint8()
> > proto_tree_add_item()
> > if(octet==X)
> > And replace it with
> > proto_tree_add_item_get_val_uin32(..,(guint8)oct..)
> > You'd save a call to
> > tvb_get_guint8() which calls fast_ensure_contiguous() etc
> >
> > So there'd be some save of cpu cycles at least...
> >
> > proto_tree_add_item() fetches the value any way so there would be next
> > to no extra cost there.
> >
> > Regards
> > Anders
> > > Thanks,
> > > Jaap
> > >
> > > On 01/12/2011 08:51 PM, Anders Broman wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > Wouldn't it be handy to have a proto_tree_new_item_get_val_ which 
> > > > would
> > > > return the value
> > > > thus avoiding to having do tvb_get_.. in conjunction with
> > > > proto_tree_new_item() when the value
> > > > is needed in a dissector?
> > > >
> > > > Would an function per field type be necessary? like
> > > > proto_tree_new_item_get_val_int32, proto_tree_new_item_get_val_uint32
> > > > etc or is there a smarter way of doing it?
> > > >
> > > > Any one interested in implementing it?
> > > > Regards
> > > > Anders
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________ 
>
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>             
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe