Hi Lucio,
2012/9/25 Lucio Di Giovannantonio <lucio.digiovannanto...@gmail.com>
> Hello to everybody, I've found something strange in rrc filters
> expression, in several cases the same filter abbreviation have different
> type, this can be a problem and/or can cause a crash?
>
> for example:
>
> { &hf_rrc_criticalExtensions_**117,
> { "criticalExtensions", "rrc.criticalExtensions",
> FT_UINT32, BASE_DEC, VALS(rrc_T_criticalExtensions_**117_vals), 0,
> "T_criticalExtensions_117", HFILL }},
>
> and
>
> { &hf_rrc_criticalExtensions_**118,
> { "criticalExtensions", "rrc.criticalExtensions",
> FT_NONE, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
> "T_criticalExtensions_118", HFILL }},
>
This is a side effect of the code auto generated from the ASN.1
description. I proposed a workaround in bug 2402 comment #14.
With it, the filters become:
{ &hf_rrc_criticalExtensions_117,
{ "criticalExtensions", "rrc.criticalExtensions",
FT_UINT32, BASE_DEC, VALS(rrc_T_criticalExtensions_117_vals), 0,
"T_criticalExtensions_117", HFILL }},
and
{ &hf_rrc_criticalExtensions_118,
{ "criticalExtensions", "rrc.criticalExtensions_label",
FT_NONE, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
"T_criticalExtensions_118", HFILL }},
But I'm not really satisfied with the _label extension and could not come
up to a better wording, so did not commit it. Any comment / suggestion is
welcome :)
Regards,
Pascal.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
