Hi, It's solved, but does that 'exception bit' get dissected?
Thanks, Jaap On 30-07-16 16:20, Dennis Luehring wrote: > Done: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12693 > > Am 30.07.2016 um 08:40 schrieb Roland Knall: >> Hi >> >> Please report this in a bug-report on https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/ >> and attach a sample trace detailing the issue. >> >> regards >> Roland >> >> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Dennis Luehring <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > i use a "Live on the Bleeding Edge" Version >> > >> > >> https://www.wireshark.org/download/automated/win64/Wireshark-win64-2.3.0-128-g98e8b26.exe >> >> > >> > Sample Modbus-Exception-Code Response: >> > 00 00 00 00 00 03 00 88 01 >> > >> > Modbus/TCP >> > Transaction Identifier: 0 >> > Protocol Identifier: 0 >> > Length: 3 >> > Unit Identifier: 0 >> > Function 8: Diagnostics. Exception: Illegal function >> > Function Code: Unknown (136) <-- !! the execption bit does not get >> > masked here !! (136 & 0x7F) == 8 >> > Exception Code: Illegal function (1) >> > ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
