why does *ptr++ act like *(ptr++) and not (*ptr)++? [duplicate]
Possible Duplicate:
++ on a dereferenced pointer in C?
Similarly, what would *ptr += 1 *ptr % 8, and *ptr / 8 be?
The differences seem confusing. Is this, perhaps, compiler dependent?
It has to do with operator precedence. The *
operator has a lower precedence than ++
so it occurs last.
Here's a Wikipedia chart that lists all the operators: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operators_in_C_and_C%2B%2B#Operator_precedence
You can see in the chart that postfix ++
has a precedence of 2 while *
dereference has a precedence of 3. (The numbers are slightly backwards, as lower numbers have higher precedence).
Operator precedence. The ++
operator "binds more tightly" than the *
operator.
Here's the table, in order of precedence. http://isthe.com/chongo/tech/comp/c/c-precedence.html
This is not compiler dependent. It will always behave this way.
Because of precedence (that's just how C works).
C FAQ on the * exact * subject
The postfix ++ and -- operators essentially have higher precedence than the prefix unary operators. Therefore, *p++ is equivalent to *(p++);
because of operator precedence
the postfix ++ has a higher precedence than the * operator. It's not compiler dependent.
*ptr += 1 will increase the value pointed to by ptr by one (or call the appropriate overloaded operator) *ptr % 8 will calculate the remainder of the value pointed to by ptr divided by 8 *ptr / 8 will calculate the division of the value pointed to by ptr and 8
From wikipedia:
For the ISO C 1999 standard, section 6.5.6 note 71 states that the C grammar provided by the specification defines the precedence of the C operators
This means that the operator precedence is governed by C standard.
The differences seem confusing. Is this, perhaps, compiler dependent?
No, the precedence of operators is defined in the c lang spec. And and so *prt++ is always deferencing the pointer before the post-increment occurs.
精彩评论