Hi,
This patch allows FT_NONE items to be built into filter expressions
(i.e. testing for their presence or absence rather than comparing with a
value) using the Apply|Prepare a Filter menus. What drove me to add
this was having to type in !tcp.analysis.out_of_order.
Does this seem reasonable?
Regards,
Martin
Index: epan/proto.c
===================================================================
--- epan/proto.c (revision 18772)
+++ epan/proto.c (working copy)
@@ -5109,6 +5109,13 @@
* These all have values, so we can match.
*/
return TRUE;
+
+ case FT_NONE:
+ /*
+ * Doesn't have a value, but may still want to test for
its
+ * presence in a trace
+ */
+ return TRUE;
default:
/*
@@ -5286,9 +5293,12 @@
break;
case FT_PROTOCOL:
+ case FT_NONE:
+ /* Just want to test for the presence of these */
buf = ep_strdup(finfo->hfinfo->abbrev);
break;
+
default:
/*
* This doesn't have a value, so we'd match
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
