On Mon, Apr 10, 2000 at 09:29:17PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
> > Gilbert, is this a result of the issue mentioned here?
>
> Yes, it does appear to be related.
(Sorry, I was offline for a few days with a family emergency)
> "fill_label_boolean()" "unshifts" the value in "fi->value.numeric"
> before handing it to "decode_bitfield_value()".
>
> However, given that "proto_tree_set_boolean()" didn't shift the value in
> the first place, "unshifting" shifts the relevant bits out of the way.
Yeah, looking at the old proto.c, FT_BOOLEAN was the same case as
FT_UINT*:
case FT_BOOLEAN:
case FT_UINT8:
case FT_UINT16:
case FT_UINT24:
case FT_UINT32:
case FT_INT8:
case FT_INT16:
case FT_INT24:
case FT_INT32:
fi->value.numeric = va_arg(ap, unsigned int);
if (hfinfo->bitmask) {
/* Mask out irrelevant portions */
fi->value.numeric &= hfinfo->bitmask;
/* Shift bits */
if (hfinfo->bitshift > 0) {
fi->value.numeric >>= hfinfo->bitshift;
}
}
break;
> So I suspect the right fix is either to make "proto_tree_set_boolean()"
> do exactly what "proto_tree_set_uint()" does, or to nuke
> "proto_tree_set_boolean()" and use "proto_tree_set_uint()" for Boolean
> fields as well as integral fields.
We should keep proto_tree_set_boolean and make it call *set_uint(), as andreas
mentioned in his e-mail.
--gilbert
