https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105581
--- Comment #3 from David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Well. There is a meaning for the code though. > That is negative > other_negative > Means negative is true while other_negative is false the result will be true > which is exactly what it is testing here. In abstract, false and true can't be compared with "<". In the implementation choice of false as 0 and true as 1, then relying on the implementation values does make "<" valid. I think that's the bad style cppcheck is complaining about. It's just better style to have it as a logical expression, as Andreas shows.
