0.10.12 compare dtc filter 2 bug

Discuss software bugs and related problems here.

Moderator: Matt

Post Reply
bachig24u
 

Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:46 pm
Location: Campbelltown, NSW
Contact:

0.10.12 compare dtc filter 2 bug

Post by bachig24u »

Hi Matt,
I was comparing bins from various extractions when I noticed 'purple' highlighting on dtc filter 2 for no reason.

looking at the comparison value, it appeared the same. The only difference was noticed in dtc filter 1 which also was 'purple' in compare mode.
compare-dtc-bug.jpg
(150.86 KiB) Downloaded 2696 times
not sure if dtc filter tables could be or should be seperated so I though best bring to your attention.

I've attached the bins also.
Attachments
bins.zip
(19.19 KiB) Downloaded 144 times
Matt
Site Admin
 

Posts: 8993
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:45 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Contact:

Re: 0.10.12 compare dtc filter 2 bug

Post by Matt »

Yeah shouldnt be highlighted. Added to list
Matt
Site Admin
 

Posts: 8993
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:45 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Contact:

Re: 0.10.12 compare dtc filter 2 bug

Post by Matt »

Problem was the address file entry in several address files including CR31

Changing the address file entries from 1,16,1,16 for these to 1,1,1,1 fixes the issue in the interim. I've updated all the address files affected and tested. These will be available in the next release
bachig24u
 

Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:46 pm
Location: Campbelltown, NSW
Contact:

Re: 0.10.12 compare dtc filter 2 bug

Post by bachig24u »

would that have affected the usage of the DTC's..
e.g. not being able to mask them out?
Matt
Site Admin
 

Posts: 8993
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 1:45 am
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Contact:

Re: 0.10.12 compare dtc filter 2 bug

Post by Matt »

No it doesnt affect those. The ranges in the address files made Nistune comparison think it was a 16x1 table so following bytes after the DTC range were used in comparison

In regards to the actual DTC filter byte changed, only a single value was being altered directly from the flags window
Post Reply