https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7348
Michael Mann <mmann78@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
--- Comment #9 from Michael Mann <mmann78@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-08-29 14:27:44 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > Created attachment 9006 [details]
> > Sort dissectors patch v2
> Sorting looks good!
> In dissector_compare_filter_name(), why not just use "" instead of "(none)"?
> Any possibility of removing the duplicates mentioned in comment 5?
Done
> > Hopefully this takes care of all of the sorting issues. It's not fast with the
> > sorting of the hash table keys and then using the keys to look back into the
> > hash table, but the function shouldn't be used that much that speed should
> > really be an issue.
> In my simple tests, it did not appear any slower, so I don't think there should
> be any concern about performance here.
It's only "slow" in the computer science theory sense (architecture requires
multiple lookups). Practically speaking you're correct that performance
shouldn't be an issue.
Fixed in rev 44696. Scheduled for backporting to v1.8
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.