Le 1 nov. 2016 12:18, "Thomas Wiens" <th.wi...@gmx.de> a écrit : > > On 01.11.2016 12:05, Pascal Quantin wrote: > > > Why not simply select the right function based on ft type? For FT_(U)INT40 > > and above use the functions I indicated earlier. > > Now someone can use a value_string inside a bitmask field, even if the > type FT_UINT64 is used. > If I change it so you have to use always val64_string with FT_UINT64 > (even if the value which is bitmasked has only 16 bits for example), > then it may be that some of the existing dissectors will fail.
If it was not using the 64 bits variant while mandated in the developer guide, then it was a bug that need to be fixed. And it should hopefully be detected by the test suite that performs a display of all fields values. > Or can > you go with a value_string into the functions for val64_string? This sounds bad :) > > For value strings checking the flag BASE_VAL64_STRING is possible, but > there is also the format function, which also has to be a 64 bit function. That's why you must rely on FT type. > > -- > Thomas > > > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > 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
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
