Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Problems with bitmasks and 64 bit values
From: Thomas Wiens <th.wiens () gmx de>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:32:20 +0100
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. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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)