Duplicated if( verbose != 0 )

[pavel-pimenov]

V581 The conditional expressions of the 'if' operators situated alongside each other are identical. Check lines: 2302, 2305. bignum.c 2305

if( verbose != 0 )
    polarssl_printf( "passed\n" );
if( verbose != 0 )
    polarssl_printf( "  MPI test #5 (simple gcd): " );

fix:
if( verbose != 0 ) {
polarssl_printf( "passed\n" );
polarssl_printf( " MPI test #5 (simple gcd): " );
}
or
if( verbose != 0 )
polarssl_printf( "passed\n MPI test #5 (simple gcd): " );

V581 The conditional expressions of the 'if' operators situated alongside each other are identical. Check lines: 522, 528. ctr_drbg.c 528
V581 The conditional expressions of the 'if' operators situated alongside each other are identical. Check lines: 539, 542. ctr_drbg.c 542
V581 The conditional expressions of the 'if' operators situated alongside each other are identical. Check lines: 1971, 1974. ecp.c 1974
V581 The conditional expressions of the 'if' operators situated alongside each other are identical. Check lines: 771, 774. gcm.c 774
V581 The conditional expressions of the 'if' operators situated alongside each other are identical. Check lines: 798, 801. gcm.c 801
V581 The conditional expressions of the 'if' operators situated alongside each other are identical. Check lines: 865, 868. gcm.c 868
V581 The conditional expressions of the 'if' operators situated alongside each other are identical. Check lines: 472, 478. hmac_drbg.c 478
V581 The conditional expressions of the 'if' operators situated alongside each other are identical. Check lines: 491, 494. hmac_drbg.c 494
V581 The conditional expressions of the 'if' operators situated alongside each other are identical. Check lines: 371, 374. timing.c 374
V581 The conditional expressions of the 'if' operators situated alongside each other are identical. Check lines: 394, 397. timing.c 397
V581 The conditional expressions of the 'if' operators situated alongside each other are identical. Check lines: 419, 422. timing.c 422

[pjbakker]

Technically the static analysis is right.

Practically, this is test code and the code reads cleaner the way it is written now.
I don't expect this to change in a future release.