Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] wireshark and mozila dehydra

[yami <yamisoe@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Did you mean you can achieve the same effect without SAT?

I did not work on it for a while. One reason is I use Wireshark less in my work :(, not mention large captures... . 

On the other hand, I do think some of your performance improvements is more effective, such as color filtering only once etc.. Color filtering only once is not so intrusive.

(I'm so bored that I've been picking random easy Wireshark bugs.)

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 9:44 PM, didier <dgautheron@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Le dimanche 14 juin 2009 à 16:32 +0800, yami a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> I tried llvm (clang's scan-build) after reading your post.
> It is very easy to run scan-build,  and it seems good to find unused
> statements.
> However for finding errors, false positives disappointed me.

Yes false positives are a show stopper.

BTW are you still working on your SAT patch?
I did update my changes but as I wrote I'm not sure a whole SAT is
needed for only building a truth table. As a matter of fact I removed
it.

Didier


___________________________________________________________________________
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