Hi, > On 15 May 2014, at 15:49, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote: > > Good catch, the result of these operations is indeed undefined, according to > the C standard. > However, I don't know if your fix is correct ... the other interpretation is: > > foo(&data, data + 1); > ++data; > > The author of this code should have a look and decide which interpretation he > meant.
I think he has. Further, the call is to svn__base36toui64() which, if I read correctly, uses the pointer as a return, e.g. in this case it does not matter whether the first parameter was incremented. Never versions of gcc might detect this and not warn? Andreas
