Re: Unexpected behavior of gcc on pointer dereference & increment

[Paul Koning via Gcc]

> On Sep 1, 2023, at 12:35 PM, Tomas Bortoli via Gcc  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I recently discovered that the following C statement:
> 
> pointer++;
> 
> is semantically equivalent to the following:
> 
> *pointer++;
> 
> Is this due to operators' priority? To me, that looks weird.

Yes, https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/operator_precedence shows that.  
Liberal use of parentheses is a very good practice. 

paul

Re: Unexpected behavior of gcc on pointer dereference & increment

[David Edelsohn via Gcc]

On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 12:37 PM Tomas Bortoli via Gcc 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I recently discovered that the following C statement:
>
> pointer++;
>
> is semantically equivalent to the following:
>
> *pointer++;
>
> Is this due to operators' priority? To me, that looks weird.
>

Equivalent in the effect, but not the value.  As you suspect, this is due
to operator precedence.

https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/operator_precedence

This is probably more appropriate for gcc-help or a general forum about the
C Language.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68829154/c-operator-precedence-postfix-increment-and-dereference

Thanks, David

Unexpected behavior of gcc on pointer dereference & increment

[Tomas Bortoli via Gcc]

Hi,

I recently discovered that the following C statement:

pointer++;

is semantically equivalent to the following:

*pointer++;

Is this due to operators' priority? To me, that looks weird.


Thanks in advance,
Tomas