On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 8:30 AM Jaap Keuter <jaap.keu...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > Let’s put a hypothetical here, a 7 bit value spanning 2 octets: > > 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8| 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ > | | | | | | | 6| 5| 4| 3| 2| 1| 0| | | | > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ > > This would be the typical interpretation, as seen in network protocols. > > Your suggestion is that the interpretation can also be: > > 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8| 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ > | | | | | | | 1| 0| 6| 5| 4| 3| 2| | | | > +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+
This is not what I wanted to write. Assuming you meant two octets, and the bitmask on the 16-bit value is 0x1FC0 then the alternative interpretation would be: 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8| 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ | | | | | | | 4| 3| 2| 1| 0| 6| 5| | | | +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ > Here the first interpretation is a simple matter of mask and shift, the > second interpretation is somewhat more involved. Since the first > interpretation is common in network protocols (and efficient to handle) the > code was made with that in mind. Is the complexity the only reason? I prefer the complex things to be in the common code and not in individual dissectors. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
