I’m going through quiz answers from my professor and a question was:
the correct implementation of a function like macro for absolute value is:
#define abs(x) ((x)<0 ? (-x) : (x))
#define abs(x) ((x)<0 ? -(x) : (x))
Why is the second one correct vs the first one?
And why do you have to use all the (). Like what are the rules involved? Every variable needs a ()? Thanks.
There are various related problems that the extra parentheses solve. I’ll go through them one by one:
Try:
int y = abs( a ) + 2Let’s assume you use:
This expands to
int y = (a<0)?-a:a+2. The+2binds only to the false result. 2 is only added when a is positive, not when it is negative. So we need parenthesis around the whole thing:Try:
int y = abs(a+b);But then we might have
int y = abs(a+b)which gets expanded toint y = ( (a+b<0) ? -a+b : a+b). If a + b is negative then b is not negated when they add for the result. So we need to put thexof-xin parentheses.Try:
int y = abs(a=b);This ought to be legal (though bad), but it expands to
int y = ( (a=b<0)?-(a=b):a=b );which tries to assign the final b to the ternary. This should not compile. (Note that it does in C++. I had to compile it with gcc instead of g++ to see it fail to compile with the “invalid lvalue in assignment” error.)Try:
int y = abs((a<b)?a:b);This expands to
int y = ( ((a<b)?a:b<0) ? -((a<b)?a:b) : (a<b)?a:b ), which groups the<0with the b, not the entire ternary as intended.In the end, each instance of
xis prone to some grouping problem that parentheses are needed to solve.Common problem: operator precedence
The common thread in all of these is operator precedence: if you put an operator in your
abs(...)invocation that has lower precedence then something around wherexis used in the macro, then it will bind incorrectly. For instance,abs(a=b)will expand toa=b<0which is the same asa=(b<0)… that isn’t what the caller meant.The “Right Way” to Implement
absOf course, this is the wrong way to implement abs anyways… if you don’t want to use the built in functions (and you should, because they will be optimized for whatever hardware you port to), then it should be an inline template (if using C++) for the same reasons mentioned when Meyers, Sutter, et al discuss re-implementing the min and max functions. (Other answers have also mentioned it: what happens with
abs(x++)?)Off the top of my head, a reasonable implementation might be:
Here it is okay to leave off the parentheses since we know that x is a single value, not some arbitrary expansion from a macro.
Better yet, as Chris Lutz pointed out in the comments below, you can use template specialization to call the optimized versions (abs, fabs, labs) and get all the benefits of type safety, support for non-builtin types, and performance.
Test Code
Output