[Checkers] Declarative specification of qualifier hierarchy
mahmood at MIT.EDU
Thu Apr 3 09:30:47 EDT 2008
On Mar 28, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Matt Papi wrote:
> Is your idea of the TypeRelation significantly different that what
> is there now? E.g., what would the code for the Javari relation
> ideally look like under that scheme? It might also help if Mahmood
> could share the work he's done on the graph relation so far (as I'd
> suggested in previous message) so you can get a better idea of what
> the that scheme would look like.
I am sorry for not sharing the code. I was using Internet cafes
without access to the code. I will check-in my code for review this
evening the latest.
>>> As a side-note, CustomChecker assumes that the negative annotation
>>> is a supertype of the positive annotation, which is false
>>> ("Plaintext/Encrypted", Trusted/Tained, etc).
> That's not quite right. The CustomChecker supports two different
> schemes. [...] Positive and negative are not the best names (they
> come from the type notation sometimes seen for nullness where T+ =
> nonnull T and T- = nullable T), though I don't think they're used in
> any of our documentation.
Thank you for clarifying this. I was under the impression that we
wanted to support Plaintext/Encrypted conflict relation, and thought
that the positive and negative thing was about this.
More information about the checkers