On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:48 AM, s...@wireshark.org wrote:
> http://anonsvn.wireshark.org/viewvc/viewvc.cgi?view=rev&revision=39559
>
> User: stig
> Date: 2011/10/25 03:48 AM
>
> Log:
> Allow signed integers displayed as DEC_HEX.
So should a 32-bit -1 be displayed as 0x or -0x1?
__
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>> Log:
>> Allow signed integers displayed as DEC_HEX.
>
> So should a 32-bit -1 be displayed as 0x or -0x1?
I was thinking more like "-1 (0x)", which would be the case for DEC_HEX.
--
Stig Bjørlykke
___
On Oct 25, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Stig Bjørlykke wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>>> Log:
>>> Allow signed integers displayed as DEC_HEX.
>>
>> So should a 32-bit -1 be displayed as 0x or -0x1?
>
> I was thinking more like "-1 (0x)", which would be the ca
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> On Oct 25, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Stig Bjørlykke wrote:
>
>> I was thinking more like "-1 (0x)", which would be the case for
>> DEC_HEX.
>
> That's BASE_DEC_HEX; if that's what they wanted, that's what they should have
> specified.
Yes.
On Oct 25, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Stig Bjørlykke wrote:
> But now I don't understand the question...
Sorry, I misread the checkin comment
Allow signed integers displayed as DEC_HEX.
as
Allow signed integers displayed as BASE_HEX.
It might have been a bit harder to misread if it w
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
> We should probably allow BASE_HEX_DEC as well.
I was thinking about it. It may make as much sense as allowing BASE_DEC_HEX.
--
Stig Bjørlykke
___
Sent via:Wireshark
Guy Harris wrote:
On Oct 25, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Stig Bjørlykke wrote:
But now I don't understand the question...
Sorry, I misread the checkin comment
Allow signed integers displayed as DEC_HEX.
as
Allow signed integers displayed as BASE_HEX.
It might have been a bit harder
On Oct 25, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> also require modifying hfinfo_numeric_format() to be able to generate
> representations of negative hexadecimal numbers
I'd say the representation should just be an unsigned representation. I.e.,
for BASE_HEX and BASE_HEX_DEC, treat FT_INTn
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
> If that's done we may as well let in BASE_HEX and BASE_OCT too.
Do you think? This would abandon the sign on negative values, and may
not be what the user expects?
--
Stig Bjørlykke
Guy Harris wrote:
On Oct 25, 2011, at 11:43 AM, Jeff Morriss wrote:
also require modifying hfinfo_numeric_format() to be able to generate
representations of negative hexadecimal numbers
I'd say the representation should just be an unsigned representation. I.e.,
for BASE_HEX and BASE_HEX_DE
10 matches
Mail list logo
