On 09/12/16 22:08, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/12/2016 02:00 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
>> Yes, I will update the patch accordingly.
>>
>> I agree, a statement like "if (x ? 0 : 2)" can be called suspicious as
>> well, even if the result of x is not ignored as in "if (x ? 1 : 2)".
>>
>> After I posted
On 09/12/2016 02:00 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Yes, I will update the patch accordingly.
I agree, a statement like "if (x ? 0 : 2)" can be called suspicious as
well, even if the result of x is not ignored as in "if (x ? 1 : 2)".
After I posted this patch, I extended the patch to cover also
susp
On 09/12/16 21:30, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 09/02/2016 12:53 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> As reported in PR77434 and PR77421 there should be a warning for
>> suspicious uses of conditional expressions with non-boolean arguments.
>>
>> This warning triggers on conditional expressions in boolea
On 09/02/2016 12:53 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi!
As reported in PR77434 and PR77421 there should be a warning for
suspicious uses of conditional expressions with non-boolean arguments.
This warning triggers on conditional expressions in boolean context,
when both possible results are non-zero
Hi!
As reported in PR77434 and PR77421 there should be a warning for
suspicious uses of conditional expressions with non-boolean arguments.
This warning triggers on conditional expressions in boolean context,
when both possible results are non-zero integer constants, so that
the resulting truth v
