Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] BCD ?
From: "Luis Ontanon" <luis.ontanon@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:51:50 +0200
That applies to ISUP as well, I've always wondered about the reason behind this oddity. On 4/10/07, Michael Lum <michael.lum@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It's probably even worse than that! In both GSM and CDMA protocols packed BCD can be represented as: digit2 digit1 digit4 digit3 such that two octets: 0x01 0x23 would be: 1032 An example is the Called Party BCD Number element. -- Michael Lum Principal Software Engineer 4600 Jacombs Road +1.604.276.0055 Richmond, B.C. Canada V6V 3B1 UTStarcom Canada, Inc. CDMA Division > -----Original Message----- > From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lars Worsaae > Sent: April 7, 2007 12:31 PM > To: Developer support list for Wireshark > Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] BCD ? > > Yes > And we might even need two different variants of PACKED BCD > The problem is how to handle odd number of digits in an > integer number of bytes > > I have two variants > leading 0: 0x01 0x23 = 123 > and > trailing F: 0x12 0x3F = 123 > > /Lars > > On 4/7/07, Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I've been interested in BCD presentation as well. For that I've > > whipped together some proto_tree_add_bcd() code, but > couldn't really > > get my head around creating a generic FT_BCD. > > For that matter you're talking about PACKED BCD, which is different > > from BCD. > > > > PACKED BCD: 0x46 0x10 -> 4610 > > BCD: 0x04 0x06 0x01 0x00 -> 4610 > > > > So if we make FT_BCD we also need to make FT_PACKED_BCD. > > Anyone a decent manual for adding FTs? > > > > Thanx, > > Jaap > > > > On Fri, 6 Apr 2007, Lars Worsaae wrote: > > > > > Desr sirs > > > Are their a smart(er) way to dissect data which are BCD encoded? > > > I cant find i tvb_get_* reading BCD. > > > I had roled my own, but am i and my experimental first time > > > dissector realy the first and only dissection BCD encoded data? > > > > > > Rgds Lars > > > > > > BTW My get'er looks like: > > > static guint32 > > > tvb_get_bcd(tvbuff_t *tvb, int offset, int length) { > > > int i; > > > guint32 val=0; > > > for(i=0;i<length;i++){ > > > guint8 b = tvb_get_guint8(tvb, offset+i); > > > val = 100*val + ((b>>4)*10 + (b&0xf)); > > > } > > > return val; > > > } > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wireshark-dev mailing list > > Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireshark-dev mailing list > Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev > _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
-- This information is top security. When you have read it, destroy yourself. -- Marshall McLuhan
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] BCD ?
- From: Lars Worsaae
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] BCD ?
- References:
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] BCD ?
- From: Lars Worsaae
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] BCD ?
- From: Michael Lum
- Re: [Wireshark-dev] BCD ?
- Prev by Date: Re: [Wireshark-dev] BCD ?
- Next by Date: [Wireshark-dev] NICs
- Previous by thread: Re: [Wireshark-dev] BCD ?
- Next by thread: Re: [Wireshark-dev] BCD ?
- Index(es):