Guy Harris wrote:
On Oct 25, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Stig Bj�rlykke wrote:
But now I don't understand the question...
Sorry, I misread the checkin comment
Allow signed integers displayed as DEC_HEX.
as
Allow signed integers displayed as BASE_HEX.
It might have been a bit harder to misread if it were
Allow signed integers displayed as BASE_DEC_HEX.
We should probably allow BASE_HEX_DEC as well.
That would, as per this comment:
/* Hexadecimal and octal are, in printf() and everywhere
* else, unsigned so don't allow dissectors to register a
* signed field to be displayed unsigned. (Else how would
* we display negative values?)
*
* If you want to take out this check, be sure to fix
* hfinfo_numeric_format() so that it does not assert out
* when trying to construct a hexadecimal representation of
* FT_INT*.
*/
also require modifying hfinfo_numeric_format() to be able to generate
representations of negative hexadecimal numbers (so as to prevent "Apply
as filter" on a signed BASE_HEX_DEC field whose decimal value is
negative from causing an abort).
If that's done we may as well let in BASE_HEX and BASE_OCT too.
This stuff came in rev 24643/bug 1539. (See the later comments in the
bug for at least one developer who wasn't happy about these checks being
put in.)
