lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] remove abs64()
On 04/13, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>
> +#define abs(x) \
> +({ \
> + typeof(x) _x = (x); \
> + \
> + __builtin_choose_expr( \
> + __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(_x), signed char), \
> + (unsigned char)({ _x < 0 ? -_x : _x; }), \
> + __builtin_choose_expr( \
> + __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(_x), short), \
> + (unsigned short)({ _x < 0 ? -_x : _x; }), \
> + __builtin_choose_expr( \
> + __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(_x), int), \
> + (unsigned int)({ _x < 0 ? -_x : _x; }), \
> + __builtin_choose_expr( \
> + __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(_x), long), \
> + (unsigned long)({ _x < 0 ? -_x : _x; }), \
> + __builtin_choose_expr( \
> + __builtin_types_compatible_p(typeof(_x), long long), \
> + (unsigned long long)({ _x < 0 ? -_x : _x; }), \
> + _x))))); \
> +})

Personally I agree.

But, we have some stupid users which do something like abs(u32_value)
and expecting that abs() should treat this value as "signed".

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-13 16:29    [W:0.052 / U:0.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site