Wireshark-bugs: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 1539] Applying filter for signed integer (FT_INT32) hf_ en
http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1539
------- Comment #2 from jeff.morriss@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-04-18 04:46 GMT -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> How should a field of type FT_INT32 and base BASE_HEX be displayed?
>
> For example, if all 32 bits are set, is that 0xFFFFFFFF (in which case it's
> really FT_UINT32, and we should reject attempts to register FT_INT32 fields
> with BASE_HEX), or is that -0x1 (in which case we need to arrange that we
> display it that way, which I don't think we currently do)?
If you forget everything you know about how computers store numbers and think
of it only as a person without a computer might (should he or she, for some
reason, decide they don't like decimal) then having a negative hex number like
-0x1 makes perfect sense.
But, of course, Wireshark is a computer program and someone seems to have
decided that %x means "unsigned hexadecimal notation" so the whole idea of a
negative hex number might be hard to achieve in reality.
I guess rejecting hf_ entries trying to be signed but represented in hex or
octal is the way to go?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
