Le 30 nov. 2015 8:01 PM, "Guy Harris" <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:40 AM, Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Should we move codecs functions to one of the existing libraries? Or add it to its own?
>
> They already *are* in their own library, but it's a static library, not a dynamic library; perhaps we should just make libcodec a dynamic library, and export functions from it with WS_DLL_PUBLIC.
>
Yes I should have been clearer in my initial description.
My suggestion with an extra parameter giving the hash table address is also working fine, so I do not have a strong feeling either way (the changed parameter is faster to do but might not be the best long term solution).
If possible I would like to have this fixed for Wireshark 2.0.1 but I wonder if such change is compatible with our usual policy to keep APIs constant (does it apply when they are buggy?).
Pascal.