On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagou...@gmail.com> wrote: > I based my change on the previous revision of jmayer (rev36724) in this file > and there is the same mistake !
Hmm, after a closer look I find that proto_item_add_subtree() returns the input parameter, so we have no real bug here. But this raises a question why we have to use the return value from proto_item_add_subtree() for the tree, as proto_item and proto_tree are the same... I think the cleanest solution is to use the return value, as this is done elsewhere and the implementation of proto_item_add_subtree() may change. Comments? -- Stig Bjørlykke ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
