1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Anyone recognise this hex format?

Discussion in 'Embedded' started by Leon Heller, May 24, 2004.

  1. Leon Heller

    Leon Heller Guest

    Does anyone know what flavour of hex file this is (first few lines):


    It doesn't look like standard Intel hex.

    Leon Heller, May 24, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. I think it is Intel Hex.

    : Delimiter
    <30> 48 byte data record
    <0200> Address
    <00> Data record
    <9c...FF> Data
    <D1> Checksum

    I think its possibly that the line lengths are 48 rather than the normally
    seen 16. Checksum of the line at 1000 appears to be wrong.

    Andrew Jackson, May 24, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Leon Heller

    CBFalconer Guest

    I agree, bearing in mind that something has wrapped the records.
    You should be prepared for length fields from 00 to ff, with 00
    usually being an end of file marker.
    CBFalconer, May 24, 2004
  4. Leon Heller

    Tauno Voipio Guest

    Whitespace should be ignored in Intel hex files. What counts as a
    delimiter it the colon.

    Tauno Voipio
    tauno voipio @ iki fi
    Tauno Voipio, May 24, 2004
  5. Leon Heller

    CBFalconer Guest

    Not in the original versions. ANYTHING is ignored after the end
    of a record before the colon delimiter. That is why the usual
    usage is limited to 16 or 32 byte long records. The purpose was
    twofold - to deliver binaries over char only communications, and
    to make paper tapes.
    CBFalconer, May 24, 2004
  6. :)
    42Bastian Schick, May 25, 2004
  7. Unless you are using an old unix terminal with a command line driven
    email client that is humming away in a disused university basement you
    will have no doubt clicked and read the previous posts in this thread
    within the last few seconds. So with a single <click> I can see the
    current post without having to refresh my memory yet once again by
    scrolling down down down through the previous post(s).

    There are a great deal of emails and posts to scan through quickly and
    not having the luxury of spending all day on them, I really can't see
    the logic in repeatedly scrolling through previous posts trying to find
    the relevant detail.

    The order is not really 4321 (CBFalconer's footer) but "click click
    click click". Any quotes or parts thereof from previous posts are purely
    there for courtesy and reference such as when we are printing it out
    occasionally or if the original post is very old (as posts go).


    - Peter Jakacki
    Peter Jakacki, May 26, 2004
  8. Leon Heller

    David Brown Guest

    I'm not fanatical, and have been known to post top and bottom depending on
    the circumstances, but there is one other thing you should take into
    account - archiving. Most threads would be best archived in /dev/null, but
    there are many good posts that turn up on web searches, and people reading
    them see them entirely out of context. For those readers, bottom posting
    provides a naturally ordered discussion - top posting makes it a lot harder
    to view.


    David Brown, May 26, 2004
  9. Leon Heller

    Al Borowski Guest

    For long longish posts like yours that only have 1 point, I completely
    agree. My pet hate is people posting at the bottom, without doing any
    snipping. Then I have to wade through heaps of crap.

    For posts that have multiple points I prefer responding to each point in



    Al Borowski, May 26, 2004
  10. Leon Heller

    Guy Macon Guest

    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

    Did Groups.google take away the "show thread" opyion and I
    didn't notice?

    "When thou enter a city, abide by its customs."

    Bottom vs. top posting and quotation style on Usenet

    Why bottom-posting is better than top-posting

    +What do you mean "my reply is upside-down"?

    The advantages of usenet's quoting conventions

    Why should I place my response below the quoted text?

    Quoting Style in Newsgroup Postings
    Guy Macon, May 26, 2004
  11. Leon Heller

    Guy Macon Guest

    ....which makes your posts very easy to read and understand.

    "Top posting classically or stereotypically involves no
    trimming and of course no contextualizing.of prior posts;
    contrasted with contextualized posts, which sequence
    questions and responses in order and context, along
    with trimming of unnecessary lines.

    In this contrast, the top post is disorderly, messy,
    and most notably egocentrical, because it leaves all
    of the cleaning up and reorganization to the correspondent
    context posters and because it inappropriately emphasizes
    the importance of whatever the top poster has to say or
    ask while mostly disregarding everything anyone else has
    been said before. It also expects the next reader to try
    to guess at what part of the previous posts the top poster
    is referring.and makes it nearly impossible to
    contextualize hir own responses." -Mike Easter
    Guy Macon, May 26, 2004
  12. Leon Heller

    Rob Turk Guest

    Having the Usenet police force everyone to post at the bottom and not snip
    anything forces me to use my mouse three times as much as simply reading a
    threaded discussion, being able to click on the response and have it right

    This fanatic anti-toppost stuff just adds to my RSI load. Get a threaded
    news reader and only copy the bare minimum from the previous message. If I
    want to read the previous message I'll click on it.

    Rob Turk, May 26, 2004
  13. Top posters ought to be shot in the neck, cut into little pieces
    and fed to the dogs.
    Frank Bemelman, May 26, 2004
  14. Whoa, whoa, silver. Stop right there. In a decade of Usenet, I've
    *never* seen anybody claim that "not snip anything" was part of good
    Usenet behaviour. Nor does anybody ever do anything as silly as that,
    in my experience. You're inventing that nonsense out of thin air.

    Full-quoting is an abomination that almost invariably comes in a
    package with top-posting.

    And that's setting aside that, at least in this newsgroup, I've yet to
    see anyone behave anywhere near as self-righteous as to be accusable
    of thinking they're the "Usenet police". Chuck Falconer's footer is
    about the most prominent anti-topposting rant to be seen here, and
    he's generally quite polite about it.
    Hans-Bernhard Broeker, May 26, 2004
  15. Leon Heller

    CBFalconer Guest

    On the contrary, you should snip enthusiastically while bottom (or
    intermix) posting. The idea is to pack a single throught into a
    single article, not a complete thread.
    CBFalconer, May 26, 2004
  16. Leon Heller

    Rob Turk Guest

    My remark wasn't targetting anyone in particular. This groups is quite
    decent, some other groups are horrible. Chuck's tagline is indeed funny,
    except I have a different opinion on the use of top posting.

    As you can see I do adher to the 'rule', but in many cases I'd rather just
    start with a clean sheet for each response and I'd much rather read a clean
    response than having to page down through 7 layers of indentation and
    wrap/cut/mangled junk to read the 2-line response. I'm not inventing this,
    I'm seeing it almost daily in some other groups. It's those groups that
    usually also have a couple of self-assigned judges to bash anyone with the
    guts to top-post.

    Rob Turk, May 26, 2004
  17. Ignorance at it's best. What a laugh I had.

    Michael Hofmann, May 26, 2004
  18. 1> Top-posting encourages full requoting. It would not be necessary to
    "scroll down down down" through irrelevant crap, headers and
    signatures if people trimmed their quoted and requoted text.

    2> Response points in a properly formatted usenet reply are
    unambiguously associated with the item to which they are responding.

    3> Properly formatted responses have less wasted verbiage, because
    it's not necessary to assign (verbally) each reply sentence to a topic
    in the original message. Context is identified positionally.
    True, and having them carefully formatted by courteous posters helps a
    great deal in reading, comprehending and responding to them quickly
    and efficiently. Top-posting is slovenly and implies a lack of effort
    beyond hitting "Reply".
    The $0.01 and $0.02 coins were abolished in Australia for a good
    reason, you know.
    Lewin A.R.W. Edwards, May 26, 2004
  19. Leon Heller

    Dave Hansen Guest

    I would have more sympathy for your point if you had bothered to cut
    the approximately 100 lines of stuff you _weren't_ responding to.

    Have you ever used a yahoo group? Top-posting is rampant. Snipping
    of text is rare. I have seen single messages with more than 300k of
    text, of which only the first two lines were new. I gave up having
    messages delivered by email. I'd give it up completely if it wasn't
    the primary means of obtaining support for one of my important tools.


    Dave Hansen, May 26, 2004
  20. Leon Heller

    Al Borowski Guest

    Yeah, I realized that after I posted. But at least with a top post, it
    doesn't really matter (as long as the message doesn't get too big). With
    a bottom post you'd have to scroll down through all the old junk just to
    read the few new lines.

    Al Borowski, May 26, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.