Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] svn r29431 doesn't look right to me.
From: Kovarththanan Rajaratnam <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:23:59 +0200
Hey,

Good catch. I only noticed that setting the last 5 members would have no effect so I simply replaced them with HFILL. This also looks suspicious:
-      FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0, NULL, 0x0000000F, 0, 0, NULL, NULL }
+      FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0F, NULL, HFILL }

The base is specified as 16. AFAICT, this isn't a valid combination for FT_UINT8. Sadly I'm not familiar with the EtherCAT protocol. Can someone shed some light on this?

didier wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure because I don't have EtherCAT captures but

in plugins/ethercat/packet-ecatmb.c for example - FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0, NULL, 0x0000000F, 0, 0, NULL, NULL }
+      FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0, NULL, HFILL }

Wasn't 0x0000000F in bitshift field a bug and the right patch something
like?
-      FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0, NULL, 0x0000000F, 0, 0, NULL, NULL }
+      FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0F, NULL, HFILL }

Didier


___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe