Hello Alexander, On Nov 15, 2016, at 4:11 AM, Alexander Stepanov <alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com> wrote:
> Thank you for the comments (hopefully I wasn't too confident picking the > issue). You’re welcome. I doubt that you will have any trouble with it. > Yes, from the "do not harm" position it seems better to remove all the > reduction-related fragments (leaving these worries to the user), but keep the > zero denominator checks + the sign checks for the unsigned fractions. Again, as I mentioned, I don’t know about the feasibility of zero denominator checks given that it is sometimes necessary to create a TIFFField whose data object is allocated but uninitialized. > One more silly question - if some upper bound (2^32 - 1) check should be > added for TIFF_RATIONAL's numerator/denominator? At a 1st glance, it seems to > be needless; on the other hand, it seems that the longs should be used to > store 32-bit unsigned integers(?). Not sure if it could cause any side > effects. If one were to do the actual division and the numerator is not a multiple of the denominator, then the result would likely be stored as a floating point value. Given that I am not sure that an overflow check is needed. Thanks, Brian
