There's a function in packet-iuup.c (by the same name) which has (what
i believe to be) a more consistent signature with the rest of
proto_tree_add_* functions should that be used instead?
Other than that the one for iuup allows for bit strings not aligned to
the octet boundary.
On 4/24/07, Joerg Mayer <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 07:24:15PM +0000, etxrab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Add a new proto function proto_tree_add_bits() which adds bits to the tree
> starting at the bit offset given for the number of bits indicated which wll also return
> the value of the bits.
> Experimental and for review, documentation to be updated.
OK, I didn't really understand the log message, but when I looked at
proto.c patch, things got clearer.
And here's the feedback:
- what's your motivation behind that patch? (just curious)
- In your patch you mixed to things: tvb_get_bits and a
proto_tree_add_bits. Pease don't do that. It makes this function
behave differently from all other proto_tree_add_ functions. Also, the
tvb_get_ function is missing. If you *really* think that mixing these
two functions makes sense, then all existing functions (and their
uses) should be modified to behave similarly, just to stay consistent.
ciao
Joerg
--
Joerg Mayer <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
--
This information is top security. When you have read it, destroy yourself.
-- Marshall McLuhan
