> Ok, so the parentheses only tell the compiler to increment the pointer and not
> the value that the pointer is pointing to.
That is what was always happening. I think that you do not understand
what a postincrement does:
void* post_pointer_inc (void **p)
{
void *r =
--- Neal H Walfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Would this not change semantics of the line by moving the pointer p before
> > dereferencing it?
>
> No, it is a post-increment.
>
Ok, so the parentheses only tell the compiler to increment the pointer and not
the value that the pointer is
> Would this not change semantics of the line by moving the pointer p before
> dereferencing it?
No, it is a post-increment.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
--- Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 02:34:08PM -0800, James Morrison wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > gcc3 produces warnings for code that looks like:
> > major = ntohl (*p++);
> > where p is a pointer. There is a lot of code that looks like this in
> > hu
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 02:34:08PM -0800, James Morrison wrote:
> Hi,
>
> gcc3 produces warnings for code that looks like:
> major = ntohl (*p++);
> where p is a pointer. There is a lot of code that looks like this in
> hurd/nfs.
> would the fix look like:
> major = ntohl (*p);
