[PATCH] x86: Add () to silence GCC 5

[Jan Beulich]

On 27.04.2021 17:20, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 12:42 AM Jan Beulich via Binutils
> <binutils@sourceware.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 26.04.2021 19:08, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, Jan Beulich via Binutils wrote:
>>>
>>>> +              && !i.prefix[ADDR_PREFIX] != (flag_code == CODE_32BIT))
>>>
>>> I'm seeing a -Werror build failure (with GCC 5):
>>>
>>> /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/src/binutils/gas/config/tc-i386.c: In function 'optimize_encoding':
>>> /scratch/jmyers/glibc-bot/src/binutils/gas/config/tc-i386.c:4152:31: error: logical not is only applied to the left hand side of comparison [-Werror=logical-not-parentheses]
>>>      && !i.prefix[ADDR_PREFIX] != (flag_code == CODE_32BIT))
>>
>> Well, not sure what to say. For one I consider the warning bogus. It
>> should be up to the programmer how booleans on either side of
>> relational operators get expressed. ! is no worse or better than ==
>> or any other relational operator. For example, personally I consider
>>
>>      && !i.prefix[ADDR_PREFIX] == !(flag_code == CODE_32BIT))
>>
>> worse.
>>
>> And then, if you think this is worthwhile fixing (which probably it
>> is, as we're unlikely to want to state that binutils don't build
>> with gcc 5), how about you submit a patch, since you've noticed the
>> issue and hence you are in a position to check whether whatever
>> possible change doesn't again trigger some kind of (bogus or not)
>> warning?
> 
> I am checking in this to silence GCC 5.

Interesting, thanks. I'll try to watch out for similar cases in
future changes of mine, but I don't think I can promise to avoid
introduction of further ones.

Jan