Hi, Jef

I have compiled this sniplet:

main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
int i;
const mares_iconhd_model_t models[] = {
{"Matrix",      MATRIX},
// {"Smart Apnea", SMARTAPNEA},
{"Smart",       SMART},
{"Icon HD",     ICONHD},
{"Icon AIR",    ICONHDNET},
{"Puck Pro",    PUCKPRO},
{"Nemo Wide 2", NEMOWIDE2},
{"Puck 2",      PUCK2},
};

// Check the product name in the version packet against the list
// with valid names, and return the corresponding model number.
unsigned int model = 0;
for ( i = 0; i < 7; ++i) {
printf ("i: %d, sizeof: %d, strlen:  %d\n",i,sizeof(models[i].name),strlen (models[i].name));

}
}

and the corresponding ouput is:


giorgio@giorgio-laptop:~$ ./prova i: 0, sizeof: 17, strlen: 6 i: 1, sizeof: 17, strlen: 5 i: 2, sizeof: 17, strlen: 7 i: 3, sizeof: 17, strlen: 8 i: 4, sizeof: 17, strlen: 8 i: 5, sizeof: 17, strlen: 11 i: 6, sizeof: 17, strlen: 6


So it seems to me that either we use strlen or we use strcmp

G


2015-09-09 13:41 GMT+02:00 Jef Driesen <jef@libdivecomputer.org>:
On 2015-09-04 12:25, Giorgio Marzano wrote:
Right now, I noticed a bug in the mares_iconhd_get_model function, line 120
of mares_iconhd.c, where sizeof should be actually strlen.

if (memcmp (device->version + 0x46, models[i].name, /*sizeof*/ strlen
(models[i].name) - 1) == 0) {

 This is not a bug. The name field is a 16 byte array, not a string. The initialization with a sting literal is convenient. The remainder of the array will automatically get padded with zero bytes, which is exactly what we need.

The correct fix is to add a new entry containing "Mares Smart". Then, the next question is: what's the correct model number? According to the model number in the memory dump (e.g. byte at offset 0), it's 0x10 or SMART:

                {"Smart",       SMART},
+               {"Smart Apnea", SMART},
                {"Icon HD",     ICONHD},

But then how do we distinguish the normal smart from the apnea variant? That will be important, because both appear to use a different data format. The strange thing here is that the normal smart already had a freedive mode. The main difference is that we now not only get a summary of each freedive in the session, but also a detailed profile.

I wonder if there is some kind of format indicator in the header that we can use to distinguish between dives with the enhanced apnea format and the more limited normal format.

Jef