On Oct 16, 2020, at 2:54 PM, Martin Mathieson
<martin.r.mathie...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> There might be some protocols where there was (say) a 7 byte integer field,
> so the dissector writer had to round it up to the nearest supported size, but
> again I didn't see that.
That's because the nearest supported size is FT_{U}INT56, so no rounding up
would have been necessary unless there was a time after we introduced
FT_{U}INT64 but before we introduced FT_{U}INT{40,48,56}.
> Another clue is the amount by which 'offset' might be added to in the very
> next line (i.e. which size does it match?), but that would be hard to
> reliably parse.
Sadly, C is far from being a good packet description language.
___________________________________________________________________________
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
