Make TagNumber support tags beyond 30. #1651
Merged
Conversation
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
turbocool3r
force-pushed
the
larger-tags
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c1113a2 to
7c4d003
Compare
dishmaker
reviewed
Feb 10, 2025
dishmaker
reviewed
Feb 10, 2025
turbocool3r
force-pushed
the
larger-tags
branch
from
7c4d003 to
b29145e
Compare
|
Added tests from #1416, fixed non-conforming behavior. |
turbocool3r
force-pushed
the
larger-tags
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c70363b to
314218f
Compare
sethmoo
reviewed
Feb 19, 2025
turbocool3r
force-pushed
the
larger-tags
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ca567e0 to
57b15ea
Compare
|
Thanks for the patch! Looks good to me. |
turbocool3r
force-pushed
the
larger-tags
branch
from
57b15ea to
ebb2e31
Compare
turbocool3r
force-pushed
the
larger-tags
branch
from
ebb2e31 to
ba23fc6
Compare
|
Rebased onto last master, fixed clippy's suggestions |
baloo
approved these changes
Feb 25, 2025
tarcieri
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2025
After #1651 the inner `u32` of `TagNumber` is now `pub` and the `TagNumber::new` function no longer maintains an invariant (which it previously did by panicking when tag numbers are out-of-range). With the field now `pub` there is no longer a need to call a function to construct a `TagNumber`, instead it can be done directly.
tarcieri
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2025
After #1651 the inner `u32` of `TagNumber` is now `pub` and the `TagNumber::new` function no longer maintains an invariant (which it previously did by panicking when tag numbers are out-of-range). With the field now `pub` there is no longer a need to call a function to construct a `TagNumber`, instead it can be done directly.
tarcieri
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2025
After #1651 the inner `u32` of `TagNumber` is now `pub` and the `TagNumber::new` function no longer maintains an invariant (which it previously did by panicking when tag numbers are out-of-range). With the field now `pub` there is no longer a need to call a function to construct a `TagNumber`, instead it can be done directly.
tarcieri
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 18, 2025
After #1651 the inner `u32` of `TagNumber` is now `pub` and the `TagNumber::new` function no longer maintains an invariant (which it previously did by panicking when tag numbers are out-of-range). With the field now `pub` there is no longer a need to call a function to construct a `TagNumber`, instead it can be done directly.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 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.
This is a smaller version of #1416, but for 32-bit tag numbers.
The PR is intentionally small and only changes handling of
TagandTagNumbertypes.The use case for 32-bit tag numbers instead of 16-bit is the Image4 format used in apple firmware files which needs PRIVATE tags with 32-bit numbers.
Breaking changes from the original PR:
u32nowu8forTagandTagNumberdo not make sense anymore, this also applies toTag::octet()Length::for_tlv()just assumed, that a tag is always one byte, it now somehow needs to know about the specific tag we are looking at