Also, if you have trouble getting a shell feature working, there is [email protected] to ask such questions.
Olga 2010/7/31 ольга крыжановская <[email protected]>: > Use typeset -li or integer to get a 64bit integer in ksh93. typeset -i > is 32bit, except for Solaris 10 ksh which was supposed to be 32bit but > was hacked to be 64bit, breaking backwards compatibility with ksh88 on > other platforms. > > typeset -si is 16bit > typeset -i is 32bit > typeset -li is 64bit > future versions will support typeset -lli for 128bit > > ksh93 -c 'typeset -li2 bi ; (( bi=10#192168001001 )) ; print $bi' > 2#10110010111110000110101111110111101001 > > Olga > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:03 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Dave, >> My apologies, I don't believe I sent a follow-up to this input. >> Please see below. >> Thank you, >> Clay >> >> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, Dave Miner wrote: >> >>> On 07/21/10 08:13 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Reading the comments in the modification, this seems misguided. We >>>>> don't need to provide for a non-CIDR notation at all; users who for >>>>> some reason desire to set this to a single address can always use /32. >>>> >>>> They can use a /32 but unfortunately the underlying SMF data type also >>>> supports either an IP or a CIDR notated network address. >>>> >>> >>> Just because the underlying SMF type allows for that doesn't mean you have >>> to accept all possibilities. Or, perhaps make a single address an implicit >>> /32 and then the algorithm applies, but I still think that's less than >>> ideal. >> >> I agree they can use a /32 but it's easy enough to support a straight IP as >> well; many folks have thought of a straight IP in testing these bits before >> trying a CIDR notation. >> >>>> Also, the range checking is necessary for the CIDR notated values. (E.g. >>>> is network 192.168.0.1/24 in the range of 0.0.0.0/0; though perhaps I'm >>>> missing something?) >>>> >>> >>> Range checking is implicit in AND'ing two addresses against a prefix >>> length and comparing for equality of the results. Really, that's all you >>> have to do. >> >> I agree that AND'ing would be easier, however, I haven't gotten a good >> handle on KSH93 alternative bases, for example, they seem a bit off: >> ad...@opensolaris:~$ typeset -i2 a=192168001001 >> ad...@opensolaris:~$ print $a >> 2#1111111111111111111111111111111110111110000110101111110111101001 >> ad...@opensolaris:~$ bc -l >> obase=2 >> 192168001001 >> 10110010111110000110101111110111101001 >> >> Perhaps I'm missing something as to why this doesn't match. (Overflow?) For >> now we have working code but in the future, it might reasonably be made more >> simple for maintainability or just converted into Python as desired where >> this can be made much more straightforward. >> _______________________________________________ >> caiman-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >> > > > > -- > , _ _ , > { \/`o;====- Olga Kryzhanovska -====;o`\/ } > .----'-/`-/ [email protected] \-`\-'----. > `'-..-| / http://twitter.com/fleyta \ |-..-'` > /\/\ Solaris/BSD//C/C++ programmer /\/\ > `--` `--` > -- , _ _ , { \/`o;====- Olga Kryzhanovska -====;o`\/ } .----'-/`-/ [email protected] \-`\-'----. `'-..-| / http://twitter.com/fleyta \ |-..-'` /\/\ Solaris/BSD//C/C++ programmer /\/\ `--` `--` _______________________________________________ caiman-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
