["Constantine Gavrilov" <CONSTG@xxxxxxxxxx>]

No.

So the idea is to have a new type FT_UINT128,
and one new format BASE_BYTES.

The BASE_HEX would display as it displays
today -- there is no problem printing two  FT_UINT64 in HEX (high
and low parts).


For FT_UNIT128 and BASE_DEC, 12 would
be displayed as 12,  and 1000000 would be displayed as 1000000. But
after a certain digit length, it would be displayed as X.YYYYYYe+Z.

Similar for BASE_BYTES, 12 would be
displayed as 12, and 1048576 would be displayed as 1048576. But, after
a cretain value, the display would round to the units of KiB, or MiB, or
GiB, or TiB, etc... Just because these values are too long to print.

Sometimes, the spec also says these
are units of x10, or , x100, or x1000. This can be handled as a scaling
factor in the field definion.  If a multiplier does not exist, I can
add it as well.

--
----------------------------------------
Constantine Gavrilov
Storage Architect
Master Inventor
Tel-Aviv Storage Lab IDT Lead
Tel-Aviv IBM Storage Lab
1 Azrieli Center, Tel-Aviv
Phone: +972-3-6897318 
Fax:      +972-3-6897230
----------------------------------------



From:      
 Guy Harris <gharris@xxxxxxxxx>
To:      
 Developer support list
for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:      
 03/22/2021 11:25 PM
Subject:    
   [EXTERNAL] Re:
[Wireshark-dev] 16 byte integer decoding
Sent by:    
   "Wireshark-dev"
<wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

---

On Mar 22, 2021, at 11:35 AM, Constantine Gavrilov
<CONSTG@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> There are two repeated patterns for this:
> 
> 1. For capacity (bytes, blocks, etc.).
> 2. For units (how many times).
> 
> So, I am thinking about two formats:
> 1. For bytes.
> 2. For units.
> 
> The implementation would get high and low 64-bits, and compute a 64-bit
value in units of 10^x (depending on the value) for units, and in units
of KiB-ZiB (depending on the value) for bytes.

So a value of 12 would be shown as "1.2 deca-XXX" for units,
and a value of 1 would be shown as "1/1024 KiB bytes" for bytes?
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wireshark.org_lists_wireshark-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=XzHrT4jzZ2lsSkPL8XE51gcxM30kcdBgWfG2QV6bUpw&m=tQcxqgz5hde146ve9M9j1qhqTetC04DMFRtybs97_8M&s=OSgT1leFMYub6iWFr_4xCHXLkD-ORYmaPPBkhO_j7KQ&e=
Unsubscribe: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wireshark.org_mailman_options_wireshark-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=XzHrT4jzZ2lsSkPL8XE51gcxM30kcdBgWfG2QV6bUpw&m=tQcxqgz5hde146ve9M9j1qhqTetC04DMFRtybs97_8M&s=2II6jhyUzo3gDG2D4C8Pp4OyRKh1IHGY4buVKQ43nEs&e=
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe