Re: Problems with bitmasks and 64 bit values

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

2016-10-30 23:32 GMT+01:00 Thomas Wiens <th.wiens () gmx de>:

> On 30.10.2016 22:52, Pascal Quantin wrote:
>
> > When looking at proto_item_add_bitmask_tree() it looks like
> > proto_tree_add_uint64() is called both for FT_UINT64 and ft_INT64 (which
> > seems surprising, not to say wrong). Until this gets clarified, you might
> > get more success by manually creating the subtree and adding items, and
> > using the FT_INTXXtype when required.
>
> Ok, that's the problem.
> The question is, why signed types are ignored, respectively not possible.

Because we overlooked this. I intended to change it today but Guy was
faster than me. Nightly master-2.0, master-2.2 and master builds should
behave properly. If you need to use a stable released version, then you
need to create the tree and sub elements yourself as I suggested yesterday.

Regards,
Pascal.

___________________________________________________________________________
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