Re: size_t best practice

Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> writes:

On 2024-08-22, Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>

Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> writes:
>

We can immediately apply the pattern I demonstrated above to this
and get
>
  for (size_t i = v->_size - 1; i != index - 1; --i)
    v->_values[i + 1] = v->_values[i];
>
Done.  No need for an extra safeguard.

>
Better (please ignore cosmetic layout differences):
>
    for( size_t i = v->_size;  i > index;  i--  ){
        v->_values[i] = v->_values[i-1];
    }

>
Or even get rid of the for loop, and use memmove() :
>
  memmove(v->_values + index + 1, v->_values + index,
          (v->_size - index) * sizeof *v->_values);

Yes, although that ignores the context of the question
that was asked, about how to deal with loop index
variables in the presence of possible "underflow".