Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: BItfields Larger than 32 Bits
From: Kevin Cox <kevincox () kevincox ca>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 16:08:28 -0400
On 13/05/14 15:06, Alexis La Goutte wrote:
The better will be add 64bits bitfields... ;-)
Unless I am missing something a 64 bit bitfield can't be used because the bitmask field of header_field_info is only 32 bits wide. Cheers, Kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
Current thread:
- BItfields Larger than 32 Bits Kevin Cox (May 13)
- Re: BItfields Larger than 32 Bits Alexis La Goutte (May 13)
- Re: BItfields Larger than 32 Bits Kevin Cox (May 13)
- Re: BItfields Larger than 32 Bits Michal Labedzki (May 14)
- Re: BItfields Larger than 32 Bits Shanks, Graham (UK) (May 14)
- Re: BItfields Larger than 32 Bits Michal Labedzki (May 14)
- Re: BItfields Larger than 32 Bits Kevin Cox (May 13)
- Re: BItfields Larger than 32 Bits Alexis La Goutte (May 13)