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

[Nick Desaulniers via libc-commits]

nickdesaulniers wrote:

Hmm...the relevant parts of the ASTs still look the same between the two cases though.
https://godbolt.org/z/jEo97qPK1

It's still unclear...oh, I think https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101537 is the relevant bug.

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