Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!necntc!cullvax!drw
From: drw@cullvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: fabs(x) vs. (x) < 0 ? -(x) : (x)
Message-ID: <815@cullvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Feb-87 11:22:11 EST
Article-I.D.: cullvax.815
Posted: Thu Feb 19 11:22:11 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Feb-87 21:39:13 EST
Organization: Cullinet Software, Inc., Westwood, MA
Lines: 34

meissner@dg_rtp.UUCP (Michael Meissner) writes:
> In article <68@umich.UUCP> jtr485@umich.UUCP (Johnathan Tainter) writes:
> > #define fabs(X)     (((_fabs = (X)) < 0? -_fabs : _fabs))
> 
> It may solve that problem, but:
> 
> 	fabs( fabs( y ) - 10.0 )
> 
> would still get the wrong answer.

Eh?  Let's look at

	(_fabs = X) < 0 ? -_fabs : _fabs

1.  X has to be computed first.

2.  Its value is assigned to _fabs (because the assignment must be
performed before the value of the assignment is used).

3.  There is a sequence point after the test-expression of a ? :, so
all side-effects of X must be completed.

4.  We get to choose -_fabs or _fabs.

The only problem could arise if X affects _fabs via some side-effect.
But this is not possible, even with nested fabs() calls, because the
only code which changes _fabs is "_fabs = X", which is required to
store into _fabs before having its value used.

Dale
-- 
Dale Worley		Cullinet Software
UUCP: ...!seismo!harvard!mit-eddie!cullvax!drw
ARPA: cullvax!drw@eddie.mit.edu