One of the more depressing things about the C language is how often the results of various operations are undefined. A prime example of this is the abs() function that I’m fairly sure is liberally dispersed throughout your code (it is through mine). The undefined operation of the abs() function comes about if you have the temerity to use a compiler that represents negative numbers using 2′s complement notation. In this case, the most negative representable number is always numerically larger than the most positive representable number. In plain English, for 16 bit integers, the range is -32768 … + 32767. Thus if you pass -32768 to the abs() function, the result is undefined.
The problem of course in an embedded system is that undefined operations are just dangerous, so surely an embedded compiler will do something sensible, like return +32767 if you pass -32768 to abs? To test this hypothesis I whipped up the following code for my favourite 8 bit compiler (IAR’s AVR compiler).
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
#include <stdio.h>
void main(void)
{
int16_t i;
int16_t absi;
i = INT16_MIN + 1; /* Set i to one more than the most negative number */
absi = abs(i);
printf("Argument = %" PRId16 ". Absolute value of argument = %" PRId16, i, absi);
i--; /* i should now equal INT16_MIN */
absi = abs(i);
printf("\nArgument = %" PRId16 ". Absolute value of argument = %" PRId16, i, absi);
}
If you don’t understand the printf strings, see this article. Here’s the output of this code:
Argument = -32767. Absolute value of argument = 32767 Argument = -32768. Absolute value of argument = -32768
Clearly abs(-32768) = -32768 is not a very useful result! If I look in <stdlib.h> I find that abs() is implemented as
int abs(int i)
{ /* compute absolute value of int argument */
return (i < 0 ? -i : i);
}
Clearly no check is being made on the bounds of the parameter, and so the result that we get depends upon how the negation of the argument is performed. Thus this leads me to my first suggestion, namely write your own abs function. I’ll call this function sabs() for safe abs(). The first pass implementation for sabs() looks like this (note you’ll have to include <limits.h> to get INT_MIN and INT_MAX):
int sabs(int i)
{
int res;
if (INT_MIN == i)
{
res = INT_MAX;
}
else
{
res = i < 0 ? -i : i;
}
return res;
}
Here’s the output:
Argument = -32767. Absolute value of argument = 32767 Argument = -32768. Absolute value of argument = 32767
I think for most embedded systems this is a better result. However what happens if you use a smaller integer than the native integer size (e.g. a 16 bit integer on a 32 bit system, or an 8 bit integer on a 16 bit system?). To test this question, I modified the code thus:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int sabs(int i);
void main(void)
{
int8_t i;
int8_t absi;
i = INT8_MIN + 1; /* Set i to one more than the most negative number */
absi = sabs(i);
printf("Argument = %" PRId8 ". Absolute value of argument = %" PRId8, i, absi);
i--; /* i should now equal INT8_MIN */
absi = sabs(i);
printf("\nArgument = %" PRId8 ". Absolute value of argument = %" PRId8, i, absi);
}
int sabs(int i)
{
int res;
if (INT_MIN == i)
{
res = INT_MAX;
}
else
{
res = i < 0 ? -i : i;
}
return res;
}
So in this case, the native integer size is 16 bits and I’m passing an 8 bit integer. Here’s the output:
Argument = -127. Absolute value of argument = 127
Argument = -128. Absolute value of argument = -128
Clearly, I still haven’t solved the problem, as I’d really like abs(-128) to be 127 when using 8 bit integers. I suspect that I could come up with some fancy expression that handles all integer types. However I’m a great believer in simple code, and so my recommendation is that you write sabs() functions for all your integer types. Thus:
/* Safe 8 bit absolute function */
int8_t sabs8(int8_t i)
{
int8_t res;
if (INT8_MIN == i)
{
res = INT8_MAX;
}
else
{
res = i < 0 ? -i : i;
}
return res;
}
/* Safe 16 bit absolute function */
int16_t sabs16(int16_t i)
{
int16_t res;
if (INT16_MIN == i)
{
res = INT16_MAX;
}
else
{
res = i < 0 ? -i : i;
}
return res;
}
/* Safe 32 bit absolute function */
int32_t sabs32(int32_t i)
{
int32_t res;
if (INT32_MIN == i)
{
res = INT32_MAX;
}
else
{
res = i < 0 ? -i : i;
}
return res;
}
The above approach is all well and good, but let’s face it, I’ve added a lot of overhead for a very rare condition. So this raises the question as to whether there is a better way of doing things? Well in many cases we use the abs() function to check for some limit. For example
if (abs(i) > SOME_LIMIT)
{
printf("\nLimit exceeded");
}
In cases like these, you can use what I call a negative absolute function, aka nabs(). nabs() works with negative absolutes and so can’t overflow. To demonstrate, here’s the code:
int nabs(int i);
void main(void)
{
int i;
int absi;
i = INT_MIN + 1; /* Set i to one more than the most negative number */
absi = nabs(i);
printf("Argument = %d Negative absolute value of argument = %d", i, absi);
i--; /* i should now equal INT_MIN */
absi = nabs(i);
printf("\nArgument = %d Negative absolute value of argument = %d", i, absi);
i = INT_MAX;
absi = nabs(i);
printf("\nArgument = %d Negative absolute value of argument = %d", i, absi);
}
int nabs(int i)
{
return i > 0 ? -i : i;
}
The output looks like this:
Argument = -32767 Negative absolute value of argument = -32767 Argument = -32768 Negative absolute value of argument = -32768 Argument = 32767 Negative absolute value of argument = -32767
Armed with this function, you merely flip your tests around, such that you have:
if (nabs(i) < SOME_NEGATIVE_LIMIT)
{
printf("\nLimit exceeded");
}
I’ll leave it to you to decide whether gaining the efficiency is worth it for the rather strange looking code.
As a final note, do a search for the abs() function on the Internet. You’ll find that most references don’t mention the undefined behavior of abs with INT_MIN as an argument. The notable exception is the always excellent GNU reference . It’s thus hardly surprising that most embedded systems use abs().
