[libc-commits] [libc] [libc] Workaround for gcc complaining about implicit conversions with the ternary ?: operator. (PR #124820)

[via libc-commits]

llvmbot wrote:


<!--LLVM PR SUMMARY COMMENT-->

@llvm/pr-subscribers-libc

Author: None (lntue)

<details>
<summary>Changes</summary>

Fixes https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/120427.

---
Full diff: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/124820.diff


1 Files Affected:

- (modified) libc/src/__support/FPUtil/except_value_utils.h (+8-4) 


``````````diff
diff --git a/libc/src/__support/FPUtil/except_value_utils.h b/libc/src/__support/FPUtil/except_value_utils.h
index f8e4e92d3e1fb3..2e58bf2b287fdf 100644
--- a/libc/src/__support/FPUtil/except_value_utils.h
+++ b/libc/src/__support/FPUtil/except_value_utils.h
@@ -81,12 +81,16 @@ template <typename T, size_t N> struct ExceptValues {
         StorageType out_bits = values[i].rnd_towardzero_result;
         switch (fputil::quick_get_round()) {
         case FE_UPWARD:
-          out_bits += sign ? values[i].rnd_downward_offset
-                           : values[i].rnd_upward_offset;
+          if (sign)
+            out_bits += values[i].rnd_downward_offset;
+          else
+            out_bits += values[i].rnd_upward_offset;
           break;
         case FE_DOWNWARD:
-          out_bits += sign ? values[i].rnd_upward_offset
-                           : values[i].rnd_downward_offset;
+          if (sign)
+            out_bits += values[i].rnd_upward_offset;
+          else
+            out_bits += values[i].rnd_downward_offset;
           break;
         case FE_TONEAREST:
           out_bits += values[i].rnd_tonearest_offset;

``````````

</details>


https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/124820