    else *rwr-- = x;

No. Make that obvious and the PR can pass. Argue, and you're off the project.

▲ wiml 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

*foo++ (and --) is an extremely common C idiom. I'd argue it's clearer than the separated version.

	▲	14113 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		As I experienced while trying to write out an AST for this pattern, the operator precedence makes it harder to read. I would at least prefer that it's written as *(foo++).

▲ xyzsparetimexyz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Fine. I'll use inline asm then.

	▲	CodeMage 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I sometimes wonder whether that's a better idea for these micro-optimizations, rather than looking at the assembly code and trying to coax the compiler into generating what you want. That said, I'm not keen on "argue and you're off the project" work environment.
	▲	bigstrat2003 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That would unironically be easier to understand than doing *rwr-- = x.

▲ tom_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

    else{
        *rwr--=x;
    }