[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: ordered indexing for integers
Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
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.
Right. All fixed.
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)
The sign bit was already being handled, but I was zero-extending instead of
Actually, looking at lutil_str2bin() one's complement would be easier:-)
It might have been, but the current 2's complement is BER-compatible.
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.
Right, invalid; integerValidate will reject it so it'll never get here.
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/