https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77434
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #2) > following is not suspicious and it would seem silly to warn for it: > > return (a > 0 && b <= 3 ? 1 : 2); > > (because the suggested alternative parse would involve b <= 3 ? 1 : 2 as > RHS of &&, which is unnatural as a conditional expression in boolean > context where the halves of the expression aren't boolean). While there is only one sensible parsing, in a code review I would still ask for parentheses, so that the reader can more quickly find that one sensible parsing and be certain that the compiler agrees. But it becomes a matter of style, and people complain every time we add a style warning, so maybe your restricted warning would be best (easier to include in -Wall).
