On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:51 AM Jaap Keuter <jaap.keu...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Shouldn’t these be supported? After all, they have a UINT.
>
> On 31 Jul 2020, at 11:28, Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev <
> wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> wrote:
>
> Error: proto_tree_add_item_ret_uint (.., hf_lcp_opt_id , ...) called at
> ./tools/../epan/dissectors/packet-ppp.c 2377 with type FT_UINT_BYTES
> (allowed types are {'FT_CHAR', 'FT_UINT32', 'FT_UINT24', 'FT_UINT16',
> 'FT_UINT8'} )
>
> Error: proto_tree_add_item_ret_uint (.., hf_slsk_directory_name , ...)
> called at ./tools/../epan/dissectors/packet-slsk.c 1051 with type
> FT_UINT_STRING
> (allowed types are {'FT_CHAR', 'FT_UINT32', 'FT_UINT24', 'FT_UINT16',
> 'FT_UINT8'} )
>
>
There's a UINT passed in that's the fixed length of the length field,
there's the total length (which is the value in the length field of
the variable bytes plus the passed in fixed UINT) returned by
proto_tree_add_item_ret_length(), and then there's the value of the
variable length field only.
Is the proposed change to have proto_tree_add_item_ret_uint() return the
value contained in the variable length field
instead of the total length? Is that ever necessary? Shouldn't in most
cases just _ret_length() be used instead?
John Thacker
___________________________________________________________________________
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
