Comment # 4
on bug 8339
from Evan Huus
I think I'm happy with the way you've done the big-endian case in the second
patch. As you point out, until we have a use case it's hard to know what the
desired behaviour should be.
I'm also happy with the concept in general. I think it will be necessary to
modify proto_item_add_bitmask_tree further in order to support bitmasks of more
than 4 bytes though?
Does that depend or relate to bug #7933 at all, since it requires endianness
for arbitrary byte lengths?
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.