OK, that is what I have done. Different hf_ for display purposes but the same name (mtp3.opc) for filtering purposes.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Guy Harris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 1:20 PM > To: Jeff Morriss > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ethereal Development List > Subject: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Patch to expose OPC/DPC from MTP3, SCCP > preferences > > > > On Dec 5, 2003, at 10:43 AM, Jeff Morriss wrote: > > > It's been a while since I actually worked on a dissector, but I think > > it's okay to have 2 hf_ variables that correspond to the same filter > > string. > > Yes, it is. We use that to, for example, handle some fields in X.25, > as their bitfield masks are different depending on whether you're using > mod-8 or mod-128 mode. > > > E.g. something like: > > > >> { & hf_mtp3_itu_opc, > >> { "OPC", "mtp3.opc", FT_UINT32, BASE_DEC, NULL, > >> ITU_OPC_MASK, > >> "", HFILL }}, > >> { & hf_mtp3_ansi_opc, > >> { "DPC", "mtp3.opc", > > (Presumably you meant "OPC", not "DPC".) > > >> FT_UINT32, BASE_NONE, NULL, 0x0, > >> "", HFILL }}, > > So in that case a particular item in the protocol tree would either be > associated with hf_mtp3_itu_opc or hf_mtp3_ansi_opc. However, a filter > expression that contained "mtp3.opc" would work with the item > regardless of which of those particular hf_ variables was used. _______________________________________________ Ethereal-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
