Hi Didier,
Thank you for trying the patch :) and all the good comments given.
I've attached a new patch to the wiki. Please see my detailed reply below.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 6:30 AM, didier
<dgautheron@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi,
Le mercredi 18 mars 2009 à 23:05 +0800, yami a écrit :
Nice work.
- If compiled without NDEBUG defined I get a failed assert:
epan/dfilter/wslimmat.c :1680 : fix_variables: "v->assignment == v"
It seems like a 'bug' of gcc optimization. We can simply remove this assertion, see explanations below.
The assertion fails, but the 'real' value of v->assignment and v are equal.
I came to this conclusion by following experiments (is there any better way?):
experiment 1. without NDEBUG defined, but using '-O0' to compile, not assertion failure occurs.
experiment 2. no change to Makefile, simply add printf(v->assignment, v) to fix_pointer(), no assertion failure
experiment 3. no change to Makefile, add following to fix_variables() after the assert line:
if (v->assignment != v)
printf("not hold v->assignment=%p, v=%p\n", v->assignment, v);
else
printf(" hold v->assignment=%p, v=%p\n", v->assignment, v);
The assertion fails (simply print, no abort), however output is:
hold v->assignment=0x8070508, v=0x8070508
which just says the opposite.
valgrind doesn't complain and it seems to work with NDEBUG but only for
simple stuff ie udp && dns, something like !(tcp.stream eq 1)
&& !(tcp.stream eq 2) doesn't return the right result.
ie:
follow TCP stream, filter out this stream, follow TCP this stream, and
so on.
Does it work for you?
This is a bug, I've fixed '!' (TEST_OP_NOT) part at least. I'll test the patch more.
- stupid but Limmat uses the original BSD license which is incompatible
with the GPL.
Really? I've thought BSD license is looser than GPL (can you give me more details?).
On the other hand, I find Wireshark code has already contains similar licenses (am I right?), for example,
Menu -> Help -> About Wireshark -> License -> Part III has metioned some.
- On the other hand if expressions are made incrementally via popup
menus is a full SAT solver need?
Perhaps you are right, but I'm not sure.
However using a SAT solver (even if it is a simple one) is the most generalized way, which requires no special handling. And it is also a good example of how math is applied in real life :)
Cons are
1. SAT solvers are complicated. (But we may use a simple algorithm)
2. Public available SAT solvers are mainly wrote by researchers, which may not have time to maintain the software.
eg:
Something like
tcp.stream eq 1 --> H1
!(tcp.stream eq 1) --> !H1 --> H2
tcp.stream eq 2 --> H3
!(tcp.stream eq 1) && !(tcp.stream eq 2) --> H2 && !H3
may be good enough.