Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0
From: Martin Kaiser <lists () kaiser cx>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:18:00 +0100
Thus wrote Martin Kaiser (lists () kaiser cx):
Thus wrote Jakub Zawadzki (darkjames-ws () darkjames pl):
proto_item_fill_label() allows empty bytes:
5389 case FT_BYTES: 5390 case FT_UINT_BYTES: 5391 bytes = (guint8 *)fvalue_get(&fi->value); 5392 label_fill(label_str, 0, hfinfo, 5393 (bytes) ? bytes_to_str(bytes, fvalue_length(&fi->value)) : "<MISSING>"); 5394 break;
It'd be good to make them consistent, allow empty bytes (+1 from me) or assert in both place.
ok, I'll change this.
done in r54290. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
Current thread:
- FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Martin Kaiser (Dec 16)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Jakub Zawadzki (Dec 16)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Martin Kaiser (Dec 18)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Martin Kaiser (Dec 20)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Martin Kaiser (Dec 20)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Martin Kaiser (Dec 18)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Guy Harris (Dec 18)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Jakub Zawadzki (Dec 16)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Guy Harris (Dec 16)
- Re: FT_BYTES hf with len==0 Martin Kaiser (Dec 18)