Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] FT_INT64 and Bitmasks

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

Date Index Thread Index Other Months All Mailing Lists
Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next
From: Guy Harris <gharris@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:42:44 -0800
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:26:13PM +0100, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> is there a reason why FT_UINT64 does not work with bitmasks?

Because the code used for shorter integers isn't used for 64-bit
integers, to avoid requiring 64-bit integer support in the compiler, and
the code to handle 64-bit integers wasn't given bitfield support.

We currently require 64-bit integer support anyway, so it's not clear
that we should continue to avoid using 64-bit integers for FT_{U}INT64;
however, note that we *CANNOT* rely on "%ll{d,o,x}" to format 64-bit
integers, as other modifiers (%L, %q, etc.) are used on some platforms. 
(Ethereal currently *does* rely on "%ll" working, but it won't work on
some platforms....)