Comment # 12
on bug 8472
from Evan Huus
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > The problem with creating a value_string64 (or similar solutions) is that it
> > seems reasonable for a set of value_strings to be shared between a fields of
> > different sizes (uint8 through uint64) and doing that would require two
> > copies of the value_string: one for uint64 and one for all the others.
>
> What about adding new mask for field ->display: BASE_VALUE64_STRING which
> informs it's 64 bit value_string?
That sounds like it should work, though I'm not too familiar with how that
field is handled internally.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.
