On Feb 20, 2014, at 8:12 AM, John Dill <john.d...@greenfieldeng.com> wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2014, Guy Harris <g...@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > >> If it's deemed too-inconvenient to require that all spare >> fields/padding/etc. be given some named field or fields, perhaps >> we should have a >> >> proto_tree_add_spare(tree, tvb, offset, len); >> >> API, perhaps with a global preference item to indicate whether those >> fields should be displayed in the protocol tree or not; if displayed, >> they'll be shown as the raw hex data. >> >> An additional API might be >> >> proto_tree_add_mbz(tree, tvb, offset, len); >> >> which is similar, but doesn't display the value unless it's non-zero, >> *and* adds an expert info item if it's non-zero. > > Those functions sound very reasonable for controlling the display of > spare bytes, but I'm also greedy enough to want some way to kick these > Spare and Reserved header_field_info structures out of the Filter > Expression dialog. In what fashion would those functions not achieve that goal? ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
