That patch almost (but not quite) matches what's listed in
README.dissector (lines 1018-1024). I believe the README is correct,
in which case the patch is simply out of date (I believe it's missing
FT_AX25 and FT_VINES, and possibly others I haven't done a thorough
check).

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Hadriel Kaplan
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Howdy,
> Along the lines of bug 2402, I'm adding verification code to prevent Lua 
> script duplicate field registration (bug 9709). The idea is to allow 
> duplicate fields if their ftypes are "similar" enough; otherwise reject it.
>
> The question, though, is what ftypes are similar enough?
>
> There's a patch in bug 2402 to check for mismatches, which makes the 
> following equivalence choices:
>
>         case FT_INT8:
>         case FT_INT16:
>         case FT_INT24:
>         case FT_INT32:
>                 return FT_INT32;
>
>         case FT_UINT8:
>         case FT_UINT16:
>         case FT_UINT24:
>         case FT_UINT32:
>         case FT_IPXNET:
>         case FT_FRAMENUM:
>                 return FT_UINT32;
>
>         case FT_UINT64:
>         case FT_EUI64:
>                 return FT_UINT64;
>
>         case FT_STRING:
>         case FT_STRINGZ:
>         case FT_UINT_STRING:
>                 return FT_STRING;
>
>         case FT_FLOAT:
>         case FT_DOUBLE:
>                 return FT_DOUBLE;
>
>         case FT_BYTES:
>         case FT_UINT_BYTES:
>         case FT_ETHER:
>         case FT_OID:
>                 return FT_BYTES;
>
>         case FT_ABSOLUTE_TIME:
>         case FT_RELATIVE_TIME:
>                 return FT_ABSOLUTE_TIME;
>
>         default:
>                 return type;
>
> Are those the right equivalence groups?  I was thinking all unsigned and 
> signed numbers should be equal, maybe even including floats and doubles. 
> Ultimately the only impact this all really has, as far as I can tell so far, 
> is on display filters (and verification of the filter string?).
>
> -hadriel
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> 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
___________________________________________________________________________
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

Reply via email to