Typo in specification sample data

, ,
1

Imported from previous forum

2

Page 33 of the 2006-12-20 FAST Specification has a bug with the mandatory negative number with sign bit extension. The FAST Hex/Binary example has ‘0x73’ for the first character, which does not match the binary below. It should be 0x7f.

Thanks,
Robert Zeh

3

Good spotting, The first byte should indeed be 0x7f.
Thx, Rolf

Page 33 of the 2006-12-20 FAST Specification has a bug with the
mandatory negative number with sign bit extension. The FAST Hex/Binary
example has ‘0x73’ for the first character, which does not match the
binary below. It should be 0x7f.

Thanks, Robert Zeh

4

The same problem shows up on page 37; the optional negative decimal with sign bit extension has a 0x73 in the hex section that doesn’t match the binary. It should be 0x7f.

Robert Zeh

5

It looks like there is a similar problem on page 40 for the multiple pmap sample. Shouldn’t the hex value for the first mantissa be 0x39 0x45 0xa3 instead of 0x39 0x45 0xa4.

In this case it looks like the binary and the hex match but are off by one.

Thanks,
Robert Zeh

6

[ original email was from Matt Simpson - msimpson@cme.com ]
yep, this was identified in an earlier posting and has been incorporated into a pending errata version of the 1.1 spec
http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/bb9a5aaf

It looks like there is a similar problem on page 40 for the multiple
pmap sample. Shouldn’t the hex value for the first mantissa be 0x39 0x45
0xa3 instead of 0x39 0x45 0xa4.

In this case it looks like the binary and the hex match but are
off by one.

Thanks, Robert Zeh