From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi1-x233.google.com (mail-oi1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::233]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 367F03858D37 for ; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 16:35:42 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 367F03858D37 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-oi1-x233.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3a7d7de894bso1400099b6e.3 for ; Fri, 01 Sep 2023 09:35:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1693586141; x=1694190941; darn=gcc.gnu.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vKiQlquDuqZRPtsJMyXdTNHHPG/BVtlZC6yy9oQbEhA=; b=VROmamFyLiU1GIPMbmm4Z4JclyqQJtBi0UuUzkjSHflCrbdXrv+a71f5VVRSgsGW8Q yvN5QpHsj6p4XSZ2J9S6Q68B8MuRd8MwAta3XqBuAmWASoScuL70Iy3fm7nbFQxcWpOa kql09StDVzAP2k7hnVqGGBBw+HhdtXBY/nRq1vabloGUW+i/gTK+9w8hTfqmokCXckjO RWqPm2J4xvo6onVFe0reJMXpFbTI1e/+berL/1vLQcLaV3ji9ilu1oerEengkmp+HW7r 5yJdSx6N83MrHo73GfCWVCSeevmmZ3wvB6EREf32N7H58hyAnr+ckwKLZiIoUXJwaBb7 AW0g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1693586141; x=1694190941; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vKiQlquDuqZRPtsJMyXdTNHHPG/BVtlZC6yy9oQbEhA=; b=G7w9WB9sOLBh7EJUa7Hq2MUgj3T9KwRjhD7t6Z64OUPBxPJDbvKqsF1dYmwlfM1K0L rv7HAaT3qQewbkdLRatgYKB8Qy7hsBwc8AzlEqgdyAeS7JPAkY9y9tSrh1DXhFky+jN0 rpP5GNEvKarkGH5Ic1L4zyogWiDYbTDgrCL7P2rcEhotFWu38Mz6nBnlQwUhBCg4XZS5 ChCdcN8gVq+4ZQYcf6JOuefoSiVrAta8sHSgKPqtH2MtjGrUDOIFS5XK6sALfPgL1jYT s/TovUc4erqLJarOFd8LD6BLh6Bu2wwGdInGgfsSwcMjfpzuhSsPFuGEAi098tpEC/Wb kbwg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwjuEVfDbRPfyF+h8bKZTWeU7TfxFZir2WSw9SF1DpF+FdEwiLz gYjSKr2wopHfkPyORNCu/Z9nLSBYRDYeCxNfCuUg1fr3xbhyIQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFBJzlMLpgpPzo4QTfqusw2EfEZ8LDXPtGQThsX9IfQWy8yv/6uIrpxQVUPGLShoDrqLVdXfLQcu+LmI4NcBmY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:f0c:b0:3a7:5a6:e0b1 with SMTP id m12-20020a0568080f0c00b003a705a6e0b1mr3698283oiw.10.1693586141312; Fri, 01 Sep 2023 09:35:41 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Tomas Bortoli Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 18:35:30 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Unexpected behavior of gcc on pointer dereference & increment To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: 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