Quote Originally Posted by PredicateNormative
I'm being pedantic, but since you rarely make a mistake, I thought I'd chip in here... the part in bold is not correct. The precedence of the post increment and post decrement operators is higher than the precedence of the dereference operator. Therefore for an ISO Standard compliant compiler the post increment must happen before the dereference.
No worries, we need to be pedantic here. Yes, your observation is correct. Consequently, itsmeandnobodyelse's same assertion is correct. However, itsmeandnobodyelse's assertion about there being a problem is wrong, assuming that the implementation follows normal semantics. The reason for my mistake is that I am thinking of the result of p++ being the original p. Therefore, *p will still dereference the value of the original p, unless for some reason postfix operator++ is implemented to return the modified p, which goes against normal semantics.