Re: [sarif] #401: Improved design of address object design

From
Jim Kupsch
Date
2019-04-29T21:44:00+00:00
ID
Thread
Re: [sarif] #401: Improved design of address object design
They might not all have the same sign.  Generally they should, but if  you are trying to report a memory access that is outside of a container  the sign might be the opposite, so probably a SHOULD instead of a SHALL.  Jim
On 4/29/19 4:36 PM, Larry Golding (Myriad Consulting Inc) wrote:
> Let's talk about length. I argued to Michael that it should just be a positive number of bytes. >
> The only time you would need length to be negative is if you had a downward-growing structure, and your address object had _neither_ offsetFromParent _nor_ relativeAddress to signal the negative value for you. Right? >
> I'm willing to allow length to be negative for that situation (and therefore, Nullable to signal absence). It seems a pity that we have this Threefold Path for determining whether the data structure is downward growing. And I suppose I have to say that of those that are present, all of them have to have the same sign! >
> Now once again I wish for Boolean growsTowardLowAddresses, but ok, we agree that it's too error prone. >
> So Michael are you ok with length/offsetFromParent/relativeAddress all being present, all allowed to be negative, and all required to have the same sign? >
> Larry >  >