Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Reverting proto_tree_reset()

[Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames-ws@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 11:37:03AM +0000, Anders Broman wrote:
> Dunno what to do with bug #2047 WONTFIX? Anders?
> 
> [1] https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2047
> 
> The code has changed to much since this patch was created and it was part of a
> large set of patches not made by me. Closing as WONTFIX as suggested :-)

Troubles getting old patch applied are not a problem.

It's just current version of
  epan_dissect_reset() is like epan_dissect_clear() and
  proto_tree_reset() is like proto_tree_clear()
  from https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=1178

  which I'm going to revert (so right now part of this bug is fixed)

Primary question is why this patch was put in BTS,
bug report is not very descriptive.

If it's for optimization than my quick benchmarks shows it's not worthy.
If for something else or you have other data, please share.


I really don't need to revert r45669, but Evan doesn't like it[1] :)

>> Tangentially, epan_dissect_cleanup() and epan_dissect_reset() share
>> some code that should probably be abstracted into its own function.

[1] http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201210/msg00195.html