[Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Lucio,

2012/9/25 Lucio Di Giovannantonio <lucio.digiovannantonio@xxxxxxxxx>

Hello to everybody, I've found something strange in rrc filters _expression_, in several cases the same filter abbreviation have different type, this can be a problem and/or can cause a crash?

for example:

{ &hf_rrc_criticalExtensions_117,
      { "criticalExtensions", "rrc.criticalExtensions",
        FT_UINT32, BASE_DEC, VALS(rrc_T_criticalExtensions_117_vals), 0,
        "T_criticalExtensions_117", HFILL }},

and

{ &hf_rrc_criticalExtensions_118,
      { "criticalExtensions", "rrc.criticalExtensions",
        FT_NONE, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
        "T_criticalExtensions_118", HFILL }},

This is a side effect of the code auto generated from the ASN.1 description. I proposed a workaround in bug 2402 comment #14.
With it, the filters become:
{ &hf_rrc_criticalExtensions_117,
      { "criticalExtensions", "rrc.criticalExtensions",
        FT_UINT32, BASE_DEC, VALS(rrc_T_criticalExtensions_117_vals), 0,
        "T_criticalExtensions_117", HFILL }},

and

{ &hf_rrc_criticalExtensions_118,
      { "criticalExtensions", "rrc.criticalExtensions_label",
        FT_NONE, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0,
        "T_criticalExtensions_118", HFILL }},

But I'm not really satisfied with the _label extension and could not come up to a better wording, so did not commit it. Any comment / suggestion is welcome :)

Regards,
Pascal.