+1. Would use this API if added (especially if it could be used for bitfields).
-Sean
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 01:06:04PM -0800, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> On Feb 27, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > My opinion (which I've voiced on this list many times over the past ~10 years) is that such fields SHOULD be dissected. Even better they should have an Expert Info if they are supposed to be 0 and aren't (Guy had suggested on a bug or somewhere that we should have an API with a name that includes "mbz"--for Must Be Zero--which would add the Expert Info automatically).
>
> It was in the thread that started here:
>
> https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201402/msg00131.html
>
> and I suggested both proto_tree_add_spare() (for fields that are spare and *not* required to be zero) and proto_tree_add_mbz() (for fields that *are* required to be zero) in
>
> https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201402/msg00135.html
>
> Neither of those take an hf_ value as an argument, so they don't clutter the list of filterable fields with a bunch of individual values for each set of spare bits; to look for "must be zero but isn't", you'd look for the expert info.
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> 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
