[Thomas Wiens <th.wiens@xxxxxx>]

On 30.10.2016 22:52, Pascal Quantin wrote:

> When looking at proto_item_add_bitmask_tree() it looks like
> proto_tree_add_uint64() is called both for FT_UINT64 and ft_INT64 (which
> seems surprising, not to say wrong). Until this gets clarified, you might
> get more success by manually creating the subtree and adding items, and
> using the FT_INTXXtype when required.

Ok, that's the problem.
The question is, why signed types are ignored, respectively not possible.