https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5658
--- Comment #13 from Sven Eckelmann <sven@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-14 08:07:48 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the changes in this last (unify
> NULL-tree dissection) patch. For example, moving this code:
>
> -
> - proto_tree_add_ether(batadv_vis_entry_tree, hf_batadv_vis_entry_dst,
> tvb, 0, 6, dst);
> - proto_tree_add_item(batadv_vis_entry_tree,
> hf_batadv_vis_entry_quality, tvb, 6, 1, FALSE);
> }
> +
> + proto_tree_add_ether(batadv_vis_entry_tree, hf_batadv_vis_entry_dst, tvb,
> 0, 6, dst);
> + proto_tree_add_item(batadv_vis_entry_tree, hf_batadv_vis_entry_quality,
> tvb, 6, 1, FALSE);
>
>
> out of the if(tree) will have no effect. The proto_tree_add_*() routines will
> simply return if the tree is NULL.
Yes, but the functions look and work similar after the change.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.
