Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!husc6!contact!ileaf!io!prs
From: prs@io.UUCP (Paul Schmidt)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: p[1] vs. *(p+1)
Message-ID: <1745@io.UUCP>
Date: 29 Aug 90 17:11:35 GMT
References: <1881@jura.tcom.stc.co.uk> <3603@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au> <1990Aug24.064203.20942@icc.com> <26D952F5.4E44@tct.uucp>
Reply-To: prs@eng.ileaf.com (Paul Schmidt)
Organization: Interleaf, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 12

In article <26D952F5.4E44@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>
>Any compiler that considers "*(p+1)" and "p[1]" to be different does
>not comply with the ANSI standard -- or with K&R, for that matter.


So, that means that the compiler must know the size of the elements of
array p, and that *(p+1) does not add 1 to p, but instead adds
sizeof(array_element_type) to p?

I must confess that I use p[1] in these cases, and count on the compiler
to optimize for me.