On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames...@darkjames.pl> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 05:39:54PM +0100, David Arnold wrote: >> Is there any enthusiasm for a BASE_CUSTOM64? > > I'd rather want some generic BASE_CUSTOM which pass to custom functiom > fvalue_t (and maybe hf_index).
It looks like all of the places that call BASE_CUSTOM functions have the necessary variables already in scope. There are ~150 currently registered BASE_CUSTOM functions, so I think it would just be a matter of manually updating them all. I'm not 100% convinced we should though - it would be more flexible, but we'd be exposing some of the guts of the dissection backend into 'userspace' as it were. Not a particular strong objection, but something to keep in mind. Cheers, Evan P.S. We don't seem to have had any requests for generally non-integer BASE_CUSTOM fields. I'm actually a bit surprised at this, since it seems like it would be useful in some situations. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
