Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Question on format_value variant ofproto_tree_add_bits_item
Yes... this seems the most reasonable way forward.
Thanks Anders!
2010/1/20 Anders Broman <anders.broman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
>
> Hi,
> how a bout creating individual fuctions that do the type checking etc and then call a common routine?
> /Anders
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Gerasimos Dimitriadis
> Sent: Wed 1/20/2010 12:21 PM
> To: wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Wireshark-dev] Question on format_value variant ofproto_tree_add_bits_item function (Take 2)
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am writing again my question, because admittedly it was not very
> clear what I was asking in the previous email :-[
>
> I want to create a _format_value variant(s) of the
> proto_tree_add_bits_item function. The easiest way to do so is to
> create a single function that takes a void * pointer of the value and
> then reads from that address a guint32, a gint32, a float etc
> depending on the type of the provided header field.
>
> The above is the most compact way of implementing such functionality,
> but on the other hand no type checking is possible and also this
> scheme is inflexible regarding the provided values (you cannot give a
> pointer to uint8 if the function expects a pointer to uint32 --- even
> worse: you can, but you shouldn't; the compiler will not say anything
> about it.).
>
> The alternative would be to create dedicated functions per header
> field type: one for adding bits as uint, one for bits as float etc.
>
> My thoughts are that adding a function per header field type is the
> most robust one, but the temptation of exporting just one function
> that can deal with all of them is big!
>
> So, I want to ask (especially the core team members): Is it acceptable
> in general for functions to be more dangerous than usual?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Gerasimos
>
> PS: I tried sending this email from my work (intracom.gr) account, but
> the list seems to silently discarding it. Any ideas why this happens?
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
