Hi, I’m also OK either way but as Pascal says taking the mask into account seems more sane.
How about changing static void proto_tree_set_uint(field_info *fi, guint32 value) to return integer and use that. Regards Anders From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pascal Quantin Sent: den 18 juli 2016 15:40 To: Developer support list for Wireshark <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] proto_tree_add_item_ret_uint() returns unmasked value - should it? Hi guys, I was bugged by the same issue but contrary to Michael, I used the API and added the bit shift / masking manually from the output of proto_tree_add_item_ret_uint... So I'm fine doing the change to take the mask into account (It would seem saner) but let's coordinate so that we can fix the dissectors accordingly (and not introduce new bugs ;) ). Or we keep the current behavior but add a big warning in the function header to make the users aware of this behavior. Pascal. 2016-07-18 15:04 GMT+02:00 Michael Mann <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>: I've been wondering that myself, and I'm leaning towards "yes it should" because there have been many cases where I couldn't use proto_tree_add_item_ret_uint where I wanted to because masks were involved. -----Original Message----- From: Anders Broman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> To: wireshark-dev <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Mon, Jul 18, 2016 8:45 am Subject: [Wireshark-dev] proto_tree_add_item_ret_uint() returns unmasked value - should it? Hi, proto_tree_add_item_ret_uint() returns the value corresponding to the length of the value fetched e.g uint8, uint16 etc but does not take the mask of the hf entry into consideration which lead to a bug in an proprietary dissector I have. Should it in fact return the value displayed in the corresponding hf variable e.g take the mask into consideration? Regards Anders ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Archives: https://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]<mailto:[email protected]>> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>?subject=unsubscribe
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
