On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:09:01AM -0700, Guy Harris wrote: > Making the field FT_UINT32 - or FT_UINT64 if it's likely to have > values > 2^32-1, or FT_INT32 if it's signed, or FT_INT64 if it's > signed and likely to have values > 2^31-1 or < -2^31 - and using > proto_tree_add_uint() after fetching the value is probably the best > idea. > > For better or worse, we don't have a FT_INT and FT_UINT (with no "n") > that can handle arbitrary-size integral values, which, at least in > theory, could be required by protocols using at least some ASN.1 > encodings, as well as by your encoding.
In addition, if the value simply needs to be displayed as hex and it is not a 64-bit or less integer, we have FT_BYTES for an arbritary length hex field. Steve ___________________________________________________________________________ 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-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
