2011/4/21 Stig Bjørlykke <[email protected]> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Alexis La Goutte > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I based my change on the previous revision of jmayer (rev36724) in this > file > > and there is the same mistake ! > > Hmm, after a closer look I find that proto_item_add_subtree() returns > the input parameter, so we have no real bug here. >
Good to known ! > > But this raises a question why we have to use the return value from > proto_item_add_subtree() for the tree, as proto_item and proto_tree > are the same... I think the cleanest solution is to use the return > value, as this is done elsewhere and the implementation of > proto_item_add_subtree() may change. Comments? > Yes, it is better solution ! Fix in Rev 36801 Why not add a check (in checkAPIs.pl) if proto_item_add_subtree always return a value ?
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
