OASIS Open Mailing List Archives  ·  All Lists  ·  sarif  ·  2019-04

sarif — archive

[Date Prev]  |  [Thread Prev]  |  [Thread Next]  |  [Date Next]   —  [Date Index]  |  [Thread Index]  |  [Month Index]  |  [List Home]

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 > >

[Date Prev]  |  [Thread Prev]  |  [Thread Next]  |  [Date Next]   —  [Date Index]  |  [Thread Index]  |  [Month Index]  |  [List Home]