https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106774
--- Comment #6 from Frank Heckenbach ---
> --- Comment #4 from Eric Gallager ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> > that's more coding style though?
>
> Yeah I personally prefer the more explicit way of writing it with both
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106774
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106774
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106774
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener ---
that's more coding style though?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106774
--- Comment #2 from Frank Heckenbach ---
This should cover all cases mentioned:
void t (bool a, int i, float e, double f)
{
// Boolean literal comparisons
if (a == true) // better: if (a)
return;
if (a == false) // better: if (!a)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106774
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
--- Comment #1 from Andrew
