From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 5D541385800D; Wed, 31 Aug 2022 23:46:44 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5D541385800D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1661989604;
	bh=DaYtNPwbOSIQgtFnsMyzk2ORF6nUeRimaAPS8lSqaI0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=RcFd2/vnPOKlmdhrsuP7ogTWR/xCE4CCkL+9H1bHIsD82Y39acORj8n34MSsCQTwa
	 rYKYotmOjUPHt8VmaZIPP+fQQU0jK3ztr7LFJHs3IL+38w8SKAykfgAf/tJV3e17iI
	 ihoASpgdYFSfzLaPSe4SrNyDJDJVSw/qr+RpRt3M=
From: "f.heckenbach@fh-soft.de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/106774] warning about comparison to true/false
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 23:46:44 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: f.heckenbach@fh-soft.de
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106774-4-HRccoJWdM5@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106774-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106774-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106774

--- Comment #6 from Frank Heckenbach <f.heckenbach@fh-soft.de> ---
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > that's more coding style though?
>=20
> Yeah I personally prefer the more explicit way of writing it with both op=
erands
> myself

It's not really about operands, but the whole operation is
redundant: "mybool =3D=3D true" is exactly equivalent to just "mybool".

So it's similar to a cast to the original type which GCC can also
warn about (-Wuseless-cast).

Some other existing warnings (-Wredundant-decls, -Wredundant-move)
also seem to warn about things that are no potential problems, just
redundant.

Of course, all of this can be considered a matter of style, that's
why warnings can be selected by options. (As I said, I assume it
would not be enabled by -Wall, and I don't mind whether or not it's
enabled by -Wextra.)=