On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Guy Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2017, at 1:31 PM, Michael Mann (Code Review) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Michael Mann has submitted this change and it was merged. > > > > Change subject: Add support for BASE_VALS_NO_UNKNOWN > > ...................................................................... > > > > > > Add support for BASE_VALS_NO_UNKNOWN > > > > BASE_VALS_NO_UNKNOWN is a special value_string value for only a single > > (maybe 2) numerical value(s). If a field has the numerical value > > that doesn't match anything in the value_string, just the number > > is supplied for the field (no "Unknown") > > > > Dissectors that had this use case have been converted in the patch. > > The use case for this appears to be for fields that normally have a > numerical value, and where particular numerical values have no special > significance, but where certain numerical values have a special meaning - > for example, a field that's normally a timeout in milliseconds, but where a > value of 0 means "time out immediately" and a value of 0xFFFFFFFF means > "never time out". > > Would a more descriptive name for it be something such as > BASE_SPECIAL_VALS? > Good idea to special_vals (better name) > ____________________________________________________________ > _______________ > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> > Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > mailto:[email protected]?subject= > unsubscribe >
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
