https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7976
--- Comment #10 from Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-11-16 07:18:00 PST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Thanks for pointing me to my question :) Probaby you did it for other readers.
Yes, exactly.
> It's not erroring out (i understand it as protocolling errors), it's crashing.
> And wireshark team successfully broke the API.
Actually, it is erroring out: you can see the error in your first screenshot
(attachment 9532). It's an assertion. Assertions (generally) also cause
"crashes."
> Our project has no changes for almost 2 years, now we must either rewrite it,
I'm not sure I'd call changing one line of code (or maybe all the hf
registrations, I didn't look), "rewriting" it.
> compability without giving something in exchange that makes it good. As i
> understand, the changes that made it to crash are made "just for fun", without
> real need.
The error is there not "for fun" but because it is pointing out a programming
error: it means the dissector writer made a mistake. Wireshark warned about
such errors since r32562 (note that's a correction to the revision I gave
yesterday); people had 2 years to fix their code before the warning turned into
an error.
(In reply to comment #5)
> So how we can fix this error?
If we are, as you said in the code.google.com issue/bug, "so stupid," I'm sure
you'd be in a much better position than us to figure that out.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching all bug changes.