Comment # 14
on bug 8472
from Evan Huus
(In reply to comment #12)
> (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.
Done in r50935. Sorry for the odd duplicate-comment spam.
Feel free to review for cases I missed: I fuzzed fairly thoroughly and looked
at a few displayed fields to make sure they were correct, but I didn't check
every possible value_string use in the engine.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.
