2016-10-30 23:32 GMT+01:00 Thomas Wiens <th.wi...@gmx.de>: > 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. >
Because we overlooked this. I intended to change it today but Guy was faster than me. Nightly master-2.0, master-2.2 and master builds should behave properly. If you need to use a stable released version, then you need to create the tree and sub elements yourself as I suggested yesterday. Regards, Pascal.
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
