Wireshark-bugs: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 8581] More intuitive and less ambiguous variable names and
Comment # 9
on bug 8581
from Cal Turney
(In reply to comment #8)
> Patch applied with some fuzzing (due to r48849 which I committed just before
> I saw this one), but it doesn't quite compile with my GCC:
> packet-nfs.c:4097:2: error: 'attributes_follow' may be used uninitialized in
> this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
packet-nfs.c:8784:2: error:
> implicit declaration of function 'dissect_nfs_nfsstat4'
> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
At this point it might be worth
> rolling the naming changes in at the same time since an updated patch is
> needed anyways?
- I don't see how 'attributes_follow' could possibly be uninitialized given the
following code:
attributes_follow = tvb_get_ntohl(tvb, offset+0);
proto_tree_add_text(post_op_attr_tree, tvb, offset, 4,
"attributes_follow: %s (%u)",
val_to_str_const(attributes_follow, value_follows, "Unknown"),
attributes_follow);
- 'dissect_nfs_nfsstat4' doesn't exist in my version of the code. The patch
changes 'dissect_nfs_nfsstat4' to 'dissect_nfs_status4'. How could this be?
- The "<field_name> duplicates PROTOABBREV of nfs" errors are true in the case
of nfs.nfsstat3, nfs.nfsstat4, and hf_nfs_nfsstat all of which set
PROTOABBREV to "Reply status" but there is nothing wrong with that.
Shouldn't we just ignore those warnings (or remove that check from the
script?) =)
- OK. I'll submit an updated patch that changes *_nfs_*4 to *_nfs4_*
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.
