Re: ordered indexing for integers

[Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>]

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
> I wrote:
> > It makes more sense to check for ridiculous-sized numbers before
> > parsing them and just output a min/max value depending on sign.  (Or
> > right-truncate e.g. n*12 digits and add n*5 to the length.)
>
> Committed.  Chopping n*7 digits and adding n*3 to the binary-integer
> length instead.  More wasteful of the exponent bits, but leaves fewer
> digits to parse.
>
> Could possibly chop just as many digits as needed and compute the length
> more exactly, but I wasn't up to figuring out what algorithm to use so
> an exponent taken from the parsed digits could add to overlap an
> exponent taken from chopping.  Will fiddle a bit with it now and see if
> I come up with something.

> One detail: Looks like lutil_str2bin() could use a ctx parameter,
> for the temporary malloc/free in that function.

Good idea. I'll add that.

This change was unnecessary:
@@ -2114,49 +2116,69 @@

 static int
 integerVal2Key(
-   struct berval *val,
+   struct berval val,
    struct berval *key,
-   struct berval *tmp
+   struct berval itmp
 )
 {

Passing structures by value may be perfectly legal now, but we never do it in 
this source base. Why start now?
--
  -- 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/