for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] FW: DISSECTOR_ASSERT_NOT_REACHED in WLCCP
decode...
No.
FT_UINT_BYTES means "a counted sequence of bytes" - i.e., a 1-byte to 4-byte
number, followed by that number of bytes. If there's no count field,
FT_UINT_BYTES shouldn't be used
Kevin A. Noll wrote:
> I'll make that change, but can you point me to an explanation of the
> difference between these two? I'm sure it's something to do with unsigned
> versus signed,
No.
FT_UINT_BYTES means "a counted sequence of bytes" - i.e., a 1-byte to
4-byte number, followed by that numb
eveloper support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] FW: DISSECTOR_ASSERT_NOT_REACHED in WLCCP
decode...
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:18:13PM +0200, Joerg Mayer wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 01:15:35PM -0700, Stephen Fisher wrote:
> > > So I'm looking at the value strin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1-717-796-1936
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joerg Mayer
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:21 AM
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] FW: DISSECTOR_ASSERT_NOT_REACHED in WLCCP
decode...
On
On Behalf Of Joerg Mayer
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:18 PM
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] FW: DISSECTOR_ASSERT_NOT_REACHED in WLCCP
decode...
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 01:15:35PM -0700, Stephen Fisher wrote:
> > So I'm looking at the value strin
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 04:20:45PM +0200, Joerg Mayer wrote:
> Please replace all FT_UINT_BYTES by FT_BYTES (you've misunderstood the
> meaning of _UINT_ in that type. That will get you further (up to some
> failed assertion "(guint)hfindex < gpa_hfinfo.len, which means, that
> you reference a non-
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:18:13PM +0200, Joerg Mayer wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 01:15:35PM -0700, Stephen Fisher wrote:
> > > So I'm looking at the value strings, and I'm wondering why we should
> > > terminate them with {0, NULL} and what happens if one of the value
> > > pairs needs to b
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 01:15:35PM -0700, Stephen Fisher wrote:
> > So I'm looking at the value strings, and I'm wondering why we should
> > terminate them with {0, NULL} and what happens if one of the value
> > pairs needs to be {0, "a real string"} ?
>
> You can still use 0, "a real string" as
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 04:09:06PM -0400, Kevin A. Noll wrote:
> So I'm looking at the value strings, and I'm wondering why we should
> terminate them with {0, NULL} and what happens if one of the value
> pairs needs to be {0, "a real string"} ?
You can still use 0, "a real string" as one of th
So I'm looking at the value strings, and I'm wondering why we should
terminate them with {0, NULL} and what happens if one of the value pairs
needs to be {0, "a real string"} ?
--kan--
--
Kevin A. Noll, KD4WOZ
CCIE, CCDP
Versatile, Inc.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECT
10 matches
Mail list logo
