Re: [Wireshark-commits] rev 39559: /trunk/epan/ /trunk/epan/: proto.c

[Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws () gmail com>]

Guy Harris wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Stig Bjørlykke wrote:
>
> > But now I don't understand the question...
>
> Sorry, I misread the checkin comment
>
>         Allow signed integers displayed as DEC_HEX.
>
> as
>
>         Allow signed integers displayed as BASE_HEX.
>
> It might have been a bit harder to misread if it were
>
>         Allow signed integers displayed as BASE_DEC_HEX.
>
> We should probably allow BASE_HEX_DEC as well.

That would, as per this comment:

>                 /*      Hexadecimal and octal are, in printf() and everywhere
>                  *      else, unsigned so don't allow dissectors to register a
>                  *      signed field to be displayed unsigned.  (Else how would
>                  *      we display negative values?)
>                  *
>                  *      If you want to take out this check, be sure to fix
>                  *      hfinfo_numeric_format() so that it does not assert out
>                  *      when trying to construct a hexadecimal representation of
>                  *      FT_INT*.
>                  */

also require modifying hfinfo_numeric_format() to be able to generate 
representations of negative hexadecimal numbers (so as to prevent "Apply 
as filter" on a signed BASE_HEX_DEC field whose decimal value is 
negative from causing an abort).

If that's done we may as well let in BASE_HEX and BASE_OCT too.

This stuff came in rev 24643/bug 1539.  (See the later comments in the 
bug for at least one developer who wasn't happy about these checks being 
put in.)
___________________________________________________________________________
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