Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: timers: use 'llabs()' over 'abs()'
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
Cc:     shuah@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, john.stultz@linaro.org,
        nathan@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, llvm@lists.linux.dev,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
References: <20211105163403.3330950-1-anders.roxell@linaro.org>
 <CAKwvOdn0vEyj-EPJG0e39v-Vq+oLFptV0oXYfzfzuy=HPzSzOA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <59bd0880-475e-eb3b-6d2a-25589d5e3a8b@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 19 Nov 2021 17:07:23 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKwvOdn0vEyj-EPJG0e39v-Vq+oLFptV0oXYfzfzuy=HPzSzOA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11/5/21 2:44 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:34 AM Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> When building selftests/timers with clang, the compiler warn about the
>> function abs() see below:
>>
>> posix_timers.c:69:6: warning: absolute value function 'abs' given an argument of type 'long long' but has parameter of type 'int' which may cause truncation of value [-Wabsolute-value]
>>          if (abs(diff - DELAY * USECS_PER_SEC) > USECS_PER_SEC / 2) {
>>              ^
>> posix_timers.c:69:6: note: use function 'llabs' instead
>>          if (abs(diff - DELAY * USECS_PER_SEC) > USECS_PER_SEC / 2) {
>>              ^~~
>>              llabs
>>
>> The note indicates what to do, Rework to use the function 'llabs()'.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
> 
> Thanks for the patch!
> Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
> 
> I wonder why tools/testing/selftests/timers/adjtick.c redefines llabs
> when it already includes stdlib.h, and how that doesn't result in some
> kind of compiler diagnostic.
> 

Hmm. The define in /usr/include/stdlib.h is under #ifdef __USE_ISOC99
Maybe be that explains the reason for the definitions in the other two
timers file?

Anders, I would like to understand this before I take this patch. I see
you sent several patches to other tests as well. Would be useful at
least understand why these defines exist.

thanks,
-- Shuah