On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 03:38:54PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote: > OK, I've checked that version in - with some fixes to get rid of other > compiler warnings (such as a "possibly uninitialized variable" warning > due to the code checking whether there's additional command data, > constructing a subtree if there is, and then adding to that subtree > whether there was additional command data or not - I changed it to move > all that code under the "is there additional command data?" check). > > You should probably get the updated version from anonymous CVS, and sent > all subsequent updates as patches to that version, rather than as the > entire source file.
By the way, the dissector (both the checked-in version, and the previous version, without the changes in question) shows frame 49 of your sample capture as a "Malformed Packet" - that packet shows an "Application Reply Size" of 0x09 in the command-specific data of the second item in the top-level command-specific data, but there isn't any application reply data in the packet. Is that packet, in fact, incorrectly constructed?
