On 30.10.2016 22:52, Pascal Quantin wrote: > When looking at proto_item_add_bitmask_tree() it looks like > proto_tree_add_uint64() is called both for FT_UINT64 and ft_INT64 (which > seems surprising, not to say wrong). Until this gets clarified, you might > get more success by manually creating the subtree and adding items, and > using the FT_INTXXtype when required.
Ok, that's the problem. The question is, why signed types are ignored, respectively not possible. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
