Hi,
The way it's working looks ok to me:
Value = 1010 1010
Proto_add_item() 1010 10.. Ox2a
x = tvb_get_guint8(tvb, 0) >> 2;
X = 0010 1010
proto_tree_add_uint_format(tree, hf_x, tvb, 0, 1, x,
> "the value of X formatted in some way");
Value = 0010 10.. 0x0A as a mask is used in hf_xx
Regards
Anders
-----Original Message-----
From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jaap Keuter
Sent: den 19 november 2007 17:31
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Bitfield handling
inproto_tree_add_uint_format()
Hi,
From a code point of view (epan/proto.c) I can see why this is
happening. From a API point of view this looks wrong. If I'm serving the
function the value to work with I expect it to work with that value, not
its own interpretation of it.
Let's have a look at what happens if we change this.
Thanx,
Jaap
Alexey Neyman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have the following question: in the dissector I am writing, there is
> a bitfield occupying bits [2..7] of a byte. I have defined it as
follows:
>
> { &hf_x, { "X", "p.x", FT_UINT8, BASE_HEX, NULL, 0xfc, "", HFILL }}
>
> Everything is okay if I add that field using proto_tree_add_item().
> However, the following code fails:
>
> x = tvb_get_guint8(tvb, 0) >> 2;
> proto_tree_add_uint_format(tree, hf_x, tvb, 0, 1, x,
> "the value of X formatted in some way");
>
> The problem is that the value assigned to the "p.x" variable for
> packet matching is shifted 2 bits right one more time in
proto_tree_set_uint().
> Workaround is easy: for such fields, the bitmask could be specified as
> zero in header_field_info. I looked for other dissectors which might
> have faced such issue; in fact, epan/dissectors/packet-cimd.c just
> employs such workaround.
>
> However, I wonder if this is a known and desired side-effect of
> proto_tree_add_uint_format() that makes its behavior different from
> proto_tree_add_item(). The doc/README.developer does not appear to
> mention that proto_tree_uint_format() takes not "final value" for
> fields with a bitmask, but rather raw, "unshifted" value.
>
> Best regards,
> Alexey Neyman.
> _______________________________________________
> 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