[Bug c/106455] New: bad style: comparatives over booleans ?

[Bug c/106455] New: bad style: comparatives over booleans ?

[dcb314 at hotmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106455

            Bug ID: 106455
           Summary: bad style: comparatives over booleans ?
           Product: gcc
           Version: 12.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

Static analyser cppcheck says for recent gcc trunk:

trunk.git/gcc/sreal.h:72:25: style: Comparison of a variable having boolean
value using relational (<, >, <= or >=) operator.
[comparisonOfBoolWithBoolError]

Source code is

      bool negative = m_sig < 0;
      bool other_negative = other.m_sig < 0;

      if (negative != other_negative)
        return negative > other_negative;

I agree - this looks bad style to me. I don't think > should work on booleans.

[Bug c/106455] bad style: comparatives over booleans ?

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106455

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |WONTFIX
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is not bad style at all.

bool > bool works just fine and is exactly what we want to test here.
Basically it means

negative && !other_negative

[Bug c/106455] bad style: comparatives over booleans ?

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106455

--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
negative && !other_negative is definitely easier to understand than negative >
other_negative.  In fact, given the condition negative != other_negative,
negative already implies !other_negative, so this can be simplified to just if
(negative != other_negative) return negative.

[Bug c/106455] bad style: comparatives over booleans ?

[dcb314 at hotmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106455

--- Comment #3 from David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> bool > bool works just fine and is exactly what we want to test here.

Confused. So is false > true or true > false ?

[Bug c/106455] bad style: comparatives over booleans ?

[schwab@linux-m68k.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106455

--- Comment #4 from Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> ---
bool > bool is evaluated as (int)bool > (int)bool.