Re: [Wireshark-commits] rev 39143: /trunk/epan/dissectors/ /trunk/epan/dissectors/: packet-dvbci.c

["Maynard, Chris" <Christopher.Maynard () GTECH COM>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org [mailto:wireshark-dev-
> bounces () wireshark org] On Behalf Of Anders Broman
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 2:53 PM
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] rev 39143:
> /trunk/epan/dissectors/ /trunk/epan/dissectors/: packet-dvbci.c
>
> Guy Harris skrev 2011-09-26 19:51:
> > On Sep 26, 2011, at 9:24 AM, Anders Broman wrote:
> >
> > > I'd vote for b,
> > So what's the difference between ENC_LITTLE_ENDIAN and ENC_BIG_ENDIAN
> for, for example, FT_NONE or a protocol, or FT_BYTES?
> Right... Some sort of check for FT and ENC combination?
> >

So that would be option (c) then?
c) Define ENC_NA differently from both ENC_LITTLE_ENDIAN and ENC_BIG_ENDIAN.

The impact of this would imply these other changes:

For every proto_tree_add_*() function:
-> Change the "const gboolean little_endian" argument to something like "gint endian"
-> Verify "endian" is valid for the given FT_ and choke on invalid ones.

And of course, change all the dissectors to use appropriate ENC_'s in the proto_tree_add_*() function calls.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email are confidential
and for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. If you receive this
email in error, please delete it from your system immediately and 
notify us either by email, telephone or fax. You should not copy,
forward, or otherwise disclose the content of the email.

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe