>> char *buffer[1024];
>> *((uint32_t)buffer) = 0x1234;
>
>I don't believe that has ever been valid.
*SIGH* I meant to write
char buffer[1024];
*((uint32_t)buffer) = 0x1234;
Is that better (and allowed)?
>> char *buffer[1024];
>> *((uint32_t)buffer) = 0x1234;
>
>I don't believe that has ever been valid.
*SIGH* I meant to write
char buffer[1024];
*((uint32_t)buffer) = 0x1234;
Is that better (and allowed)?
|