Hi Lucio,
2012/9/25 Lucio Di Giovannantonio
<lucio.digiovannantonio@xxxxxxxxx>
Hello
to everybody, I've found something strange in rrc filters _expression_, in
several cases the same filter abbreviation have different type, this can be a
problem and/or can cause a crash?
for example:
{
&hf_rrc_criticalExtensions_117,
{
"criticalExtensions", "rrc.criticalExtensions",
FT_UINT32, BASE_DEC, VALS(rrc_T_criticalExtensions_117_vals),
0,
"T_criticalExtensions_117", HFILL
}},
and
{ &hf_rrc_criticalExtensions_118,
{ "criticalExtensions", "rrc.criticalExtensions",
FT_NONE, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
"T_criticalExtensions_118", HFILL }},
This is a side effect of the code auto generated from the ASN.1
description. I proposed a workaround in bug 2402 comment #14.
With it, the
filters become:
{
&hf_rrc_criticalExtensions_117,
{
"criticalExtensions",
"rrc.criticalExtensions",
FT_UINT32, BASE_DEC, VALS(rrc_T_criticalExtensions_117_vals),
0,
"T_criticalExtensions_117",
HFILL }},
and
{
&hf_rrc_criticalExtensions_118,
{
"criticalExtensions",
"rrc.criticalExtensions_label",
FT_NONE, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
"T_criticalExtensions_118", HFILL }},
But I'm not really satisfied with
the _label extension and could not come up to a better wording, so did not
commit it. Any comment / suggestion is welcome
:)
Regards,
Pascal.
Is
this due to "duplicated field" names? If so one could try to rename them, but as
I remember there is lots...
