Re: What ftypes are "compatible" enough for duplicate fields?

[Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com>]

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Hadriel Kaplan
<hadriel.kaplan () oracle com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com> wrote:
>
> > That patch almost (but not quite) matches what's listed in
> > README.dissector (lines 1018-1024). I believe the README is correct,
> > in which case the patch is simply out of date (I believe it's missing
> > FT_AX25 and FT_VINES, and possibly others I haven't done a thorough
> > check).
>
> Heh, you told me to go read that before and I forgot to check it.
>
> So this then:
> - FT_INT8, FT_INT16, FT_INT24 and FT_INT32
> - FT_UINT8, FT_UINT16, FT_UINT24, FT_UINT32, FT_IPXNET and FT_FRAMENUM
> - FT_UINT64 and FT_EUI64
> - FT_STRING, FT_STRINGZ and FT_UINT_STRING
> - FT_FLOAT and FT_DOUBLE
> - FT_BYTES, FT_UINT_BYTES, FT_AX25, FT_ETHER, FT_VINES, FT_OID and FT_REL_OID
> - FT_ABSOLUTE_TIME and FT_RELATIVE_TIME

As far as I know without digging through the code in epan/ftypes/ to be sure.
___________________________________________________________________________
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