Hey,
Good catch. I only noticed that setting the last 5 members would have no
effect so I simply replaced them with HFILL. This also looks suspicious:
- FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0, NULL, 0x0000000F, 0, 0, NULL, NULL }
+ FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0F, NULL, HFILL }
The base is specified as 16. AFAICT, this isn't a valid combination for
FT_UINT8. Sadly I'm not familiar with the EtherCAT protocol. Can someone
shed some light on this?
didier wrote:
Hi,
I'm not sure because I don't have EtherCAT captures but
in plugins/ethercat/packet-ecatmb.c for example
- FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0, NULL, 0x0000000F, 0, 0, NULL, NULL }
+ FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0, NULL, HFILL }
Wasn't 0x0000000F in bitshift field a bug and the right patch something
like?
- FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0, NULL, 0x0000000F, 0, 0, NULL, NULL }
+ FT_UINT8, 16, NULL, 0x0F, NULL, HFILL }
Didier
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe