Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Problems with bitmasks and 64 bit values
From: Thomas Wiens <th.wiens () gmx de>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:02:58 +0100
On 30.10.2016 22:54, Guy Harris wrote:
But you said it was a 64-bit unsigned integer: { "Error code", "s7comm-plus.returnvalue.errorcode", FT_UINT64, BASE_HEX, NULL, 0x000000000000ffff, NULL, HFILL }}, Try saying it's a 16-bit signed integer - FT_INT16 - instead.
Does not work, then also getting a DISSECTOR_ASSERT_NOT_REACHED, this time from proto_tree_add_uint() -- 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
Current thread:
- Problems with bitmasks and 64 bit values Thomas Wiens (Oct 30)
- Re: Problems with bitmasks and 64 bit values Pascal Quantin (Oct 30)
- Re: Problems with bitmasks and 64 bit values Thomas Wiens (Oct 30)
- Re: Problems with bitmasks and 64 bit values Pascal Quantin (Oct 31)
- Re: Problems with bitmasks and 64 bit values Thomas Wiens (Oct 31)
- Re: Problems with bitmasks and 64 bit values Thomas Wiens (Oct 31)
- Re: Problems with bitmasks and 64 bit values Pascal Quantin (Oct 31)
- Re: Problems with bitmasks and 64 bit values Thomas Wiens (Oct 30)
- Re: Problems with bitmasks and 64 bit values Pascal Quantin (Oct 30)
- Re: Problems with bitmasks and 64 bit values Thomas Wiens (Oct 30)