On 27 Dec 2000 15:28:45 +0100, Matthias Hessler wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> just experimented a bit with pack_Appointment and unpack_Appointment, using
> my real datebook data file.
> I read the pdb file with unpack_Appointment, then wrote it (unchanged) to
> a new pdb file with pack_Appointment
>
> Interestingly enough, it turned out that the input file was not binary
> identical to the output file.
>
> After some research, I was able to track down the differences.
> The good news is that none of the currently processed data is affected.
> It turned out that for some records in my datebook, pilot-link treats
> some bytes as gap fill, while in some cases they are set to non-zero values
> in my datebook.
>
> In my 5755 records, these bytes are different:
> * byte 7 (595 records)
> (This is the byte just after byte 6, which contains the record flags)
> * gap byte after the repeat type (3 records)
> * gap byte after the repeatWeekstart (3 records)
>
> I'm not too much worried about the last two gap bytes, even so any binary
> difference is very interesting. However, the strong usage of byte 7
> indicates to me that this byte may actually be in use.
So I did some checking and the evidence i see points to those really
being gap bytes. I actually think that the bit fields on the palm are
being done as unsigned shorts and thus taking up 2 bytes each (which
maps well to c/c++). I think the difference can safely be ignored
unless you have any other evidence to the contrary.
-JP
--
--
=======================================================================
JP Rosevear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Helix Code Inc. http://www.helixcode.com
_______________________________________________
Pilot-unix mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hcirisc.cs.binghamton.edu/mailman/listinfo/pilot-unix
