Re: ordered indexing for integers

Also overflow gives wrong ordering: value 0x100000000: index 0480000000 value 0x80000000: index 0580800000 I'm too tired to figure out what the code does at overflow now, and maybe I misunderstood the discussion earlier, but it should give the right _ordering_ for overflow even if it can't make a very exact index.

I wrote:

To get the correct ordering, use normal (fully sign-extended) two's complement but with the sign bit inversed. (Same as value + max positive value + 1)

Actually, looking at lutil_str2bin() one's complement would be easier:-) And maybe it needs to turn '-0' into '0'? I think that's invalid LDAP Integer syntax so it doesn't matter in that context, but still.