Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Path | csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail |
|---|---|
| NNTP-Posting-Date | Tue, 08 May 2012 05:35:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4FA8F6EC.52A3@mindspring.com> (permalink) |
| Date | Tue, 08 May 2012 06:35:24 -0400 |
| From | pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> |
| Reply-To | pfiland@mindspring.com |
| Organization | PF |
| X-Mailer | Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; I) |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: pointer arithmetic question. |
| References | <8d75171a-27cf-45ac-b9f4-57427d79b0d6@h4g2000pbe.googlegroups.com> <4FA67433.60EC@mindspring.com> |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 7bit |
| Lines | 39 |
| X-Usenet-Provider | http://www.giganews.com |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | 4.156.228.178 |
| X-Trace | sv3-B6OX6V+yP3ojUlgXM8Qi7G0ghmfaJrxil1rlQjLfsfywCUowwzbTZx+jecrbeOPkQQYepeFmlNbCraa!ojrqjqGC9cTAqjY8oXAK1RJpPdsabUj3fdDitj3WwuOyJpqY1lIUI+b2IvDBs5X1SRp99/acr0NK!Sej/IHjcV1g= |
| X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info | Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers |
| X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info | Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly |
| X-Postfilter | 1.3.40 |
| X-Original-Bytes | 2134 |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.c:20497 |
Show key headers only | View raw
pete wrote:
>
> somenath wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > The following program is crashing.
>
> > char s[] ="test";
> > char *t=s;
>
> > *t = toupper(*t++);
> > //t++;
> > But how that can happen also ? As post increment operator's side
> > effect will be taking effect after the sequence point in this case
> > after execution of the code *t = toupper(*t++);
> Also,
> for the above definition of (t),
> the opcode for this expression: (t++)
> may or may not be
> the same as the opcode for this expression: (++t, t-1).
> Whether the side effect takes place before
> or after the value of (t++)is determined,
> is up to the implementation.
That's the old way.
In the new standard,
there is a sequence point
in the value of a postfix increment expression.
n1570
6.5.2.4 Postfix increment and decrement operators
2 The value computation of the result is sequenced
before the side effect of updating the stored value of the operand.
--
pete
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
pointer arithmetic question. somenath <somenathpal@gmail.com> - 2012-05-05 21:46 -0700
Re: pointer arithmetic question. Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2012-05-05 23:25 -0700
Re: pointer arithmetic question. Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2012-05-06 07:52 -0700
Re: pointer arithmetic question. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-05-06 06:58 +0000
Re: pointer arithmetic question. pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-05-06 08:53 -0400
Re: pointer arithmetic question. pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2012-05-08 06:35 -0400
Re: pointer arithmetic question. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-08 06:37 -0700
Re: pointer arithmetic question. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-05-08 14:32 +0000
Re: pointer arithmetic question. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-08 10:31 -0700
Re: pointer arithmetic question. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-05-09 21:04 +0000
Re: pointer arithmetic question. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-10 10:06 -0700
Re: pointer arithmetic question. Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-05-11 17:52 +0000
Re: pointer arithmetic question. Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-05-11 19:27 -0700
csiph-web