[Stefano Pettini <spettini@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Guy Harris wrote:

> You'd have to write your own code, or find code, to do whatever's 
> necessary to support integral data types bigger than 64 bits.

I have an important field (alc.lct.toi) containing numeric values up to 
2^112-1. Since its size is not fixed, this field is often 16-bits or 
32-bits but it can potentially grow up to 112-bits.

I would like to make this field easily searchable, so I would like to 
use an FT_UINT* format during registration, to allow the user to ask for 
"alc.lct.toi == 1". But it's incompatible with a 112-bits integer, that 
doesn't exists and isn't handled by ethereal.

The problem is partially solved using FT_BINARY (well, I don't remember 
very well if this format exists :-). I've managed the field like an 
array of bytes, not like a very large integer. Unfortunately this makes 
searching difficult, since "alc.lct.toi == 1" doesn't work.

Even if more correct, I don't think this is the best solution, since the 
field is going to contain often simple numbers (0, 1, 2).

Any suggestion?

Thanks.

Stefano