On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 09:18:18PM +0200, darkjames...@darkjames.pl wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 08:33:57PM +0200, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> > I'm confused about this block in TRY_TO_FAKE_THIS_ITEM_OR_FREE
> >
> > if (!(PTREE_DATA(tree)->visible)) { \
> > if (PTREE_FINFO(tree)) { \ ### [1] Sake workaround for some
> > bugs (details: 00c05ed3f)
> > if ((hfinfo->ref_type != HF_REF_TYPE_DIRECT) \
> > && (hfinfo->type != FT_PROTOCOL || \
> > PTREE_DATA(tree)->fake_protocols)) { \
> > free_block; \
> > /* just return tree back to the caller */\
> > return tree; \
> >
> > If tree is not visible (and fake_protocols is set, which seems to be the
> > default), we return the tree itself.
> >
> > proto_item *it = proto_tree_add_text(tree, tvb, 0, -1, "foobar");
> >
> > If tree!=NULL && !(PTREE_DATA(tree)->visible) the return value it==tree
> > Why does this make sense?
>
> Ok, what value you propose to return instead of 'tree'?
>
> <strike>c/ NULL</strike> (you cannot cause it will make filtering stop
> working).
Ah! We could do if (it == NULL) { it = tree; } when creating subtree, for leaf
we don't need a fix.
It still lot of work to do, but I'm +0.5 for it ;-)
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
