Aug 28, 2013 · Recently I have come across this problem which I am unable to understand by myself. What do these three Expressions REALLY mean? *ptr++ *++ptr ++*ptr I have tried …

Feb 10, 2016 · In *ptr += 1, we increment the value of the variable our pointer points to. In *ptr++, we increment the pointer after our entire statement (line of code) is done, and return a …

* (ptr++), *ptr++ both result in incrementing the value of pointer but not the +1 expression. Let us say &a [0] i.e address of start of the array = 0x1000 (for simplicity). Let us assume size of each …

Jul 20, 2013 · If you compile with some warnings on (clang didn't even require any flags), you'll see that your program has three extraneous * operators. Simplifying your crazy-looking …

Dec 26, 2014 · As for the question in the title of your post Difference Between *ptr and * (&ptr + 1) then *ptr corresponds to a[0] while using expression *(&ptr + 1) results in undefined behaviour …

Feb 28, 2013 · That pointer is then cast to an int*, and that is assigned to ptr. The same could be achieved with int *ptr = &a[5]; in this case. Then ptr - 1 is a pointer pointing sizeof(int) bytes …

Feb 19, 2013 · This seems to be the short version of ptr[1], if ptr is an int * pointer of course. so first type cast ptr to int * then increment by one, then dereference.

Jan 24, 2011 · If ptr is a pointer that gives you access to an object at some (arbitrary) position, ptr+1 and ptr-1 will return pointers that give you access to its neighbors.

These statements produce different results because of the way in which the operators bind. In particular, the prefix ++ operator has the same precedence as *, and they associate right-to …

Dec 17, 2012 · int *ptr[10]; is an array of 10 pointers. Reason for segfault: *ptr=a; printf ("%d",*ptr [1]); Here you are assigning the address of array a to ptr which would point to the element a[0]. …