![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The article makes a questionable statement "There are three types of Intel HEX: 8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit. They are distinguished by their byte order." Is that true? If yes please elaborate how you would distinguish these types merely on the byte order of the data or memory fields, especially if you don't know the data they contain and therefore cannot predict which order is correct/intended. As far as I can see you can only distinguish the three types by checking if they contain a 02 and/or 03 record (=> 16-bit), 04 and/or 05 record (=> 32 bit) or only 00 and possibly 01 records (=> 8 bit). 91.50.231.77 ( talk) 18:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Correction to one of the links format description
The link on the article page has been moved. JBadger169 15:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It has been over 6 weeks since I posted this, no comments, will edit the main article. JBadger169 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The article says to beware of Intel 16 and Intel 32 which 'may' be byte swapped. Is there a reference to when it is swapped and when not swapped? 57.66.56.195 ( talk) 11:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
If there is anyone keeping a close eye to the article's changes: I tried to make it more formal removing the 'Beware [...] some programmers tend to confuse [...]' part for another way of saying the same thing. Also removed the 'To make things more confusing' statement: although it is more friendly, it is not formal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.88.113.34 ( talk) 02:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the original Intel specification, there is no standard for record separators. The example shows each record on a new line, and I've worked with an application that requires <LF> <CR> between each record. With the original punched cards this wasn't an issue, but is there a 'formal' definition of this. Just letting the records run on from each other doesn't work, even though the spec with fixed record lengths and a start character would seem to allow for this. The Yowser ( talk) 16:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone give concrete examples of Intel HEX application? Thanks, -- Abdull ( talk) 20:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
"01, End Of File record, a file termination record. No data. Has to be the last line of the file, only one per file permitted. Usually every field except the record type (=01) and obviously the checksum field is zero, which gives ':00000001FF'."
I obviously fail to see the zero checksum field. Darsie42 ( talk) 18:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Would it make sense to move the legend above Records? As things stand now, coloring is used in Records before the coloring scheme is defined, which could confuse some readers. Also, it might be helpful to show a simple colorized example of each record type in the records table, as is done with EOF (a "picture" is worth 1K words). Lambtron ( talk) 15:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is HEX capitalized? It is not an initialism, and the Intel specification does not capitalize it, nor does the libbfd source code (as used in, e.g., objcopy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.78.190 ( talk) 23:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The Record Types section needs links to relevant wiki pages. At work, may do later if I remember ;) SIGSTACKFAULT ( talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Although the original Intel document states that the 03 record type is "Start Segment Address" the description more correctly states "initial content of the CS:IP registers"
This is actually the starting execution address.
I don't know how this should be noted in the article.
DGerman ( talk) 21:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems like the sum is wrong for this calculation: 03 + 00 + 30 + 00 + 02 + 33 + 7A = 1E2
should it be just E2? Or, am I missing a subtlety about 2s compliment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutabaega ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I have rephrased some of the history section. There remain cite warnings. The referenced, archived, very large manual pages 6-75 begins the discussion of format DGerman ( talk) 00:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Quoting in reference section is out of control. It is way too long. Either shorten it and/or remove it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Both paper tape and punch cards can surely present "binary" data.
Suggest this be removed.
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The article makes a questionable statement "There are three types of Intel HEX: 8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit. They are distinguished by their byte order." Is that true? If yes please elaborate how you would distinguish these types merely on the byte order of the data or memory fields, especially if you don't know the data they contain and therefore cannot predict which order is correct/intended. As far as I can see you can only distinguish the three types by checking if they contain a 02 and/or 03 record (=> 16-bit), 04 and/or 05 record (=> 32 bit) or only 00 and possibly 01 records (=> 8 bit). 91.50.231.77 ( talk) 18:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Correction to one of the links format description
The link on the article page has been moved. JBadger169 15:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It has been over 6 weeks since I posted this, no comments, will edit the main article. JBadger169 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The article says to beware of Intel 16 and Intel 32 which 'may' be byte swapped. Is there a reference to when it is swapped and when not swapped? 57.66.56.195 ( talk) 11:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
If there is anyone keeping a close eye to the article's changes: I tried to make it more formal removing the 'Beware [...] some programmers tend to confuse [...]' part for another way of saying the same thing. Also removed the 'To make things more confusing' statement: although it is more friendly, it is not formal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.88.113.34 ( talk) 02:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the original Intel specification, there is no standard for record separators. The example shows each record on a new line, and I've worked with an application that requires <LF> <CR> between each record. With the original punched cards this wasn't an issue, but is there a 'formal' definition of this. Just letting the records run on from each other doesn't work, even though the spec with fixed record lengths and a start character would seem to allow for this. The Yowser ( talk) 16:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone give concrete examples of Intel HEX application? Thanks, -- Abdull ( talk) 20:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
"01, End Of File record, a file termination record. No data. Has to be the last line of the file, only one per file permitted. Usually every field except the record type (=01) and obviously the checksum field is zero, which gives ':00000001FF'."
I obviously fail to see the zero checksum field. Darsie42 ( talk) 18:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Would it make sense to move the legend above Records? As things stand now, coloring is used in Records before the coloring scheme is defined, which could confuse some readers. Also, it might be helpful to show a simple colorized example of each record type in the records table, as is done with EOF (a "picture" is worth 1K words). Lambtron ( talk) 15:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is HEX capitalized? It is not an initialism, and the Intel specification does not capitalize it, nor does the libbfd source code (as used in, e.g., objcopy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.78.190 ( talk) 23:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The Record Types section needs links to relevant wiki pages. At work, may do later if I remember ;) SIGSTACKFAULT ( talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Although the original Intel document states that the 03 record type is "Start Segment Address" the description more correctly states "initial content of the CS:IP registers"
This is actually the starting execution address.
I don't know how this should be noted in the article.
DGerman ( talk) 21:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems like the sum is wrong for this calculation: 03 + 00 + 30 + 00 + 02 + 33 + 7A = 1E2
should it be just E2? Or, am I missing a subtlety about 2s compliment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutabaega ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I have rephrased some of the history section. There remain cite warnings. The referenced, archived, very large manual pages 6-75 begins the discussion of format DGerman ( talk) 00:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Quoting in reference section is out of control. It is way too long. Either shorten it and/or remove it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Both paper tape and punch cards can surely present "binary" data.
Suggest this be removed.