Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!mtune!codas!cpsc6a!rtech!wrs!dg
From: dg@wrs.UUCP (David Goodenough)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Style [++i vs i++]
Message-ID: <210@wrs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Jul-87 14:42:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: wrs.210
Posted: Thu Jul  2 14:42:25 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Jul-87 13:12:17 EDT
References: <17310@amdcad.AMD.COM> <17315@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Reply-To: dg@wrs.UUCP (David Goodenough)
Organization: Wind River Systems, Emeryville, CA
Lines: 29

In article <17315@amdcad.AMD.COM> markg@amdcad.UUCP (Mark Gorlinsky) writes:
>In article <17310@amdcad.AMD.COM> tim@amdcad.AMD.COM (Tim Olson) writes:
>>Which operator (pre-increment or post-increment) do you use when the side-
>>effect is the only desired action and the result is discarded, i.e.
>>
>>	for (i=0; i<MAX; ++i)    vs    for (i=0; i<MAX; i++)
>
>Sorry Tim, I have to disagree with you.  I hate to see sloppy 'C' code, when it
>can be avoided, but this is perfectly fine.  The use of the post-increment or 
>decrement operator to bump a value up|down, when not being passed as an
>argument, doesn't generate any side-effects.  Both will produce the same code.
>-- 
> Mark Gorlinsky - AMD Processor Products Division/APPS SQA

I must agree with Mark - I use (and prefer)  i++, and EVEN using
Lifeboat's BDS C compiler (for the Intel 8080 (Vintage 1979 Micro) :-))
the code for a  i++  on its own is:

	ld	hl,(_i)
	inc	hl
	ld	(_i),hl

--
		dg@wrs.UUCP - David Goodenough

					+---+
					| +-+-+
					+-+-+ |
					  +---+