There's a function in packet-iuup.c (by the same name) which has (what i believe to be) a more consistent signature with the rest of proto_tree_add_* functions should that be used instead?
Other than that the one for iuup allows for bit strings not aligned to the octet boundary. On 4/24/07, Joerg Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 07:24:15PM +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Add a new proto function proto_tree_add_bits() which adds bits to the tree > > starting at the bit offset given for the number of bits indicated which > > wll also return > > the value of the bits. > > Experimental and for review, documentation to be updated. > > OK, I didn't really understand the log message, but when I looked at > proto.c patch, things got clearer. > And here's the feedback: > - what's your motivation behind that patch? (just curious) > - In your patch you mixed to things: tvb_get_bits and a > proto_tree_add_bits. Pease don't do that. It makes this function > behave differently from all other proto_tree_add_ functions. Also, the > tvb_get_ function is missing. If you *really* think that mixing these > two functions makes sense, then all existing functions (and their > uses) should be modified to behave similarly, just to stay consistent. > > ciao > Joerg > > -- > Joerg Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that > works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology. > _______________________________________________ > Wireshark-dev mailing list > Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev > -- This information is top security. When you have read it, destroy yourself. -- Marshall McLuhan _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
