https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70547
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> --- In this case, the code was deliberately written this way, presumably to avoid the branching in &&. Using & would be better (and that's what I am suggesting we optimize it to), but * doesn't seem nonsensical to me. (we can still add a warning if you want) PR 45780 seems to be about something completely different, and the code here would not trigger the warning requested there (the result is the same if we replace bool by int everywhere).
