On 08/19/2010 08:21 AM, Pan ruochen wrote: > This following statement fails in the latest gcc (4.3.3): > * ((unsigned short *)ptr)++ = XXXX; > > The messages are: `lvalue required as increment operand'. > It is really a very convenient way of saving to the current > pointer and then moving the pointer forward or backward. > > It is a little complex to replace the statement with > * ((unsigned short *)ptr) = XXXX; ptr += sizeof(unsigned short); > > Why gcc does not support the style? Because it's not legal C. We used to support it, but we stopped. > And there is another simple > substitution for that? Not really. IMO if you're going to do something like this, better to spell it out. Andrew.
