Stephan Sandenbergh wrote: > Hi, > > Now I'm slightly confused: > >>> My gut tells me that <Checksum><cr><lf><@><@> would be believable more than >>> say 95% (if not 99%) of the time. I've got the following observations: > > In the above I assumed no data length checking is employed. > >>> - 95% is a bad number in accurate timing applications. >> You misunderstand. You can get as close to 100% as you >> want. Some of us have logged data from M12+ receivers without >> error for weeks or months -- gigabytes, error-free. > > Sure, I assume you refer to the case when you check the data length as > well? I meant that the <Checksum><cr><lf><@><@> byte string could also > potentially exist in the data itself, but only in very rare cases > (from there the 95% thumb suck).
No it cannot. It would be:<checksum><cr><cr><lf><lf><@><@><@><@>... As I understand it, they use a byte stuff code, where any of the "special" bytes must be doubled if they are in the data.... And, there must be a data area length check or you could get into some truly pathological situations. -Chuck Harris _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
