On 1 March 2015 at 13:17, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 27 February 2015 at 20:45, dcoffin wrote: >> Hi Manuel, >> >> Yes, I know that cam_xyz[] would have to be declared >> differently for *(cam_xyz + (i)*3 + (j)) to work, but it's >> all the same at the hardware level. > > If you're not going to follow the rules of the C language then maybe > you should stop writing C and stick to assembler. It was pointed out to me that my message was unnecessarily blunt, sorry. What I meant is that modern C definitely has a type system with rules that must be obeyed, it's not just a glorified assembly language. A C compiler doesn't accept pointer arithmetic that would work if you did the same thing in assembly.
