https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3013
Michael McCartney <mccart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment #2429|review_for_checkin? |
Flag| |
Attachment #2429 is|0 |1
obsolete| |
Attachment #2438| |review_for_checkin?
Flag| |
--- Comment #3 from Michael McCartney <mccart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-01 13:58:16 PDT ---
Created an attachment (id=2438)
--> (https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2438)
revised updated patch
I did all the requested clean up fixes (bogus conditional, bogus return NULL,
bogus initializer) unrelated to the code I added in the function as requested,
no problem.
I attached the revised patch with the latest changes.
I cannot answer your question as to why 'bit_offset' and 'no_of_bits' are
signed values - that is pre-existing code. Yes, it looks like the code will
fail if a negative number was passed in and I don't think this function was
meant to use negative number given that bit offset and number of bits from
that offset is passed in.
However, with that said, I plan to leave those alone, pre-existing code as
is, if that is ok with you.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
