Eos R Firmware version/date

[rlt53090]

I was just in checking something and looked to see if Canon had snuck a firmware update in for the R, when I noticed that the latest version says 1.8.0 which is what I have, BUT the date is listed as 6-9-21. I have that update but from 12-2020. I did not dload the "newer" version as the number has not changed. Any ideas?

[Peter]

1.8.0 came last year in November, I think.

[rlt53090]

I am aware of that, which is why I was wondering about the date on the website changing!

[Waddizzle]

A new download server would be one explanation for it.

[Lotus7]

Opening the respective FIR files in a FireOne editor shows a definite difference.

The "older" version was compiled on Oct 21, 2020, while the currently available one was last compiled on Feb. 4, 2021

The newest version contains 2112 more bytes of code.  There is no easy way to tell what the actual changes are, but they may be a fix for a minor, obscure bug or two, OR they just may be a few comments added by the author to allow for better documentation of the code.

Obviously, the diffence is not enough for Canon to justify a version numbering change and to trigger a firnmware update for all users.

[rlt53090]

Well, thanks for looking at it. I am sure the changes, if any, are not enough to make it a new version but I found the date change somewhat strange. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@Lotus7 wrote:

Opening the respective FIR files in a FireOne editor shows a definite difference.

The "older" version was compiled on Oct 21, 2020, while the currently available one was last compiled on Feb. 4, 2021

The newest version contains 2112 more bytes of code.  There is no easy way to tell what the actual changes are, but they may be a fix for a minor, obscure bug or two, OR they just may be a few comments added by the author to allow for better documentation of the code.

Obviously, the diffence is not enough for Canon to justify a version numbering change and to trigger a firnmware update for all users.

---

That increased file size does not necessarily have to be additional code.  It could simply be comments and metadata. 

[kvbarkley]

That is a pretty poor compiler that passes the comments on to an executable.

They might have added some additional languages, though.

[Waddizzle]

---

@kvbarkley wrote:

That is a pretty poor compiler that passes the comments on to an executable.

They might have added some additional languages, though.

---

That's how managed code works, though.  Unmanaged code does not contain comments.