Use dissector_add_uint instead of dissector_add#8
Open
legoscia wants to merge 1 commit intoCPqD:masterfrom
Open
Use dissector_add_uint instead of dissector_add#8legoscia wants to merge 1 commit intoCPqD:masterfrom
legoscia wants to merge 1 commit intoCPqD:masterfrom
Conversation
dissector_add_uint was introduced in Wireshark 1.6.0, with dissector_add remaining as a compatibility macro. dissector_add was finally removed in 1.6.11. This closes CPqD#2.
|
@alnvdl , do you mind merging this PR? 😄 |
|
For the reference: #14 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
dissector_add_uintwas introduced in Wireshark 1.6.0, withdissector_addremaining as a compatibility macro.dissector_addwas finally removed in 1.6.11.That means that while this patch fixes compilation with 1.6.11 and newer, it breaks compatibility with versions earlier than 1.6.0. Would that be acceptable?
This closes #2.