[clang-tidy] Handle missing parenthesis around non-trivial conditions in ternary expressions.

[RKSimon]

As reported on #85868 (and case inside llvm/clang fixed by #90391)

We have cases like:

    for (unsigned i = TSFlags & X86II::EVEX_K ? 2 : 1;

Similar to #84481 it'd be much easier to read if this was:

    for (unsigned i = (TSFlags & X86II::EVEX_K) ? 2 : 1;

[llvmbot]

@llvm/issue-subscribers-clang-tidy

Author: Simon Pilgrim (RKSimon)

As reported on #85868 (and case inside llvm/clang fixed by #90391)

We have cases like:

    for (unsigned i = TSFlags & X86II::EVEX_K ? 2 : 1;

Similar to #84481 it'd be much easier to read if this was:

    for (unsigned i = (TSFlags & X86II::EVEX_K) ? 2 : 1;

[MaskRay]

Code bases that prefer more parens can adopt this pattern, but llvm-project should probably avoid it.

The ternary conditional pattern [-+*%] \w+ \? is a common idiom used in many codebases, e.g. I == E - 1 ? Size : Layout->getElementOffset(I + 1).

Adding parentheses around these expressions seems to provide little benefit in terms of readability or maintainability, given the churn cost. Consider suppressing these static analyzer reports for this specific pattern.