The unknown is only for this address to its parents. The same problem exists whether you use -1 or unknownOffset/Length. It is useful to know offsets up to the point of where it is unknown as you at least know it is relative to this address (grand..)parent
object. The cleaner approach to working around the SDK not supporting nullable is to use the extra boolean.
On 4/29/19 2:18 PM, Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc) wrote:
I really think my previous suggestion of
growthDirection is the least bad alternative if we decide
NOT
to use
Nullable<int> . I d modify my proposal to a
Boolean
growsTowardLowMemory , default
false .
From:
<>
On Behalf Of Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc)
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 11:46 AM
To: James Kupsch
<> ; Michael Fanning
<> ; OASIS SARIF TC Discussion List
<>
Subject: RE: [sarif] #401: Improved design of address object design
Importance: High
I m not as happy as I was a few moments ago. If the unknown properties default to
false , then if you don t populate
offsetFromParent (which happens at the top of every parent chain) or
length (which can happen anywhere along the parent chain), then you have to remember to set the corresponding unknown property. You won t. Of if the unknown properties default to
true , you have to set them to
false whenever you do populate offsetFromParent or
length . You won t.
Michael (addressing this question specifically to him because of the SDK impact), I don t see a good alternative to
Nullable<int> . Please let us know your opinion. Raising to red-bang.
Larry
From: Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc)
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 11:37 AM
To: James Kupsch < >; Michael Fanning < >; OASIS SARIF TC Discussion
List <
>
Subject: RE: [sarif] #401: Improved design of address object design
I could accept Boolean unknownLength and unknownOffsetFromParent, default false for both.
I will write it this way and send a draft. I can always change this aspect of the design if the TC objects.
Larry
