Ahh yes, sorry, I should have paid more attention when writing that. Honestly
it was a suggestion as a temporary patch till I get the time to write a 16 bit
table support patch, which is why I rushed it.
The numtables variable was for future support (as was the way of calculating
the increase to
> unsigned curLen = 0;
> unsigned numtables = 0;
> for (int i = 8; i >= 0; i--) //each bit in the Precision field indicates
> value of a table read from right to left; 0 for 8 bit, 1 for 16 bit (see RFC
> 2435 section 3.1.8)
> {
> if(curLen >= Length) break; //Ignore excess bits after all t
