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.
--
Regards,
Hallvard