prashanth joshi wrote: > So length-2 bytes of data is added in to tree ,starting from the > location number ofset + 5 of tvb. > My query is : is it absolutely necessary to have hf_gtp_ext_ > as the second argument when ever we want to add an item? > Can not we do away with it by having a NULL as second argument instead?
No. For one thing, the second argument is an integer value, not a pointer, so NULL doesn't make sense as the second argument. Furthermore, proto_tree_add_item() adds an instance of a named field, so you *have* to supply an integer value that identifies a named field. > ( I found it difficult to understand how the contents of the > proto_register_gtp array are built) > And what would be the limitations if we try to add an item using the > proto_tree_add_text( ) instead ? Well, one limitation is that you will not be able to do any display filtering on the value - it'll just be entered as text to be displayed. You won't be able to select packets with a particular value of that field by doing "gtp.ext_val == <value>". _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
