On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Guy Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:10 PM, Evan Huus <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Tangential to this, does anybody know what the deal is with >> decode_enumerated_bitfield() and decode_enumerated_bitfield_shifted()? > > The deal may be that... > >> The first is called in exactly one place, the second not at all. > > ...the first was used more in the past (which it was), but uses got replaced > with named fields. and maybe the second was used but replaced by named fields > as well. > > They were helper routines to use with proto_tree_add_text(). > >> They return static buffers (which is odd, though not necessarily wrong, >> perhaps they should be using packet-scope memory?), > > At the time they were created, packet-scope memory didn't exist. They're > *really* old, as in "before we renamed it to Wireshark" old. > >> and while they >> make use of value strings they don't seem immediately value-string >> related. > > I guess if they belong anywhere, it's in to_str.c along with the other > decode_XXX_bitfield routines. > >> The only one that is called is fairly short so I'm tempted to manually >> inline that and drop both functions. At the very least they should >> probably be moved to to_str.c (or somewhere else). >> >> Thoughts? > > Fix dissect_nfs_fattr4_fh_expire_type() to use named fields and > proto_tree_add_item(), and then get rid of both decode_enumerated_bitfield() > and decode_enumerated_bitfield_shifted()?
Agreed. I've added that to the list of misc. cleanups for bug 8467. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
