Wireshark-bugs: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 3013] Simplfy/generalize proto_tree_add_bits_ret_val()
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2008 13:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3013


Michael McCartney <mccart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Attachment #2429|review_for_checkin?         |
               Flag|                            |
Attachment #2429 is|0                           |1
           obsolete|                            |
   Attachment #2438|                            |review_for_checkin?
               Flag|                            |




--- Comment #3 from Michael McCartney <mccart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  2008-11-01 13:58:16 PDT ---
Created an attachment (id=2438)
 --> (https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=2438)
revised updated patch

I did all the requested clean up fixes (bogus conditional, bogus return NULL,
bogus initializer) unrelated to the code I added in the function as requested,
no problem.

I attached the revised patch with the latest changes.

I cannot answer your question as to why 'bit_offset' and 'no_of_bits' are 
signed values - that is pre-existing code.  Yes, it looks like the code will 
fail if a negative number was passed in and I don't think this function was
meant to use negative number given that bit offset and number of bits from
that offset is passed in.

However, with that said, I plan to leave those alone, pre-existing code as
is, if that is ok with you.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.