Re: Problems with bitmasks and 64 bit values

[Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin () gmail com>]

Le 1 nov. 2016 12:18, "Thomas Wiens" <th.wiens () 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-request () 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-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe