Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #387698
| From | Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: size_t best practice |
| Date | 2024-08-22 06:12 -0700 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <865xrsaega.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink) |
| References | <VdCcne2MOeshN1z7nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <va275j$3d6tp$1@dont-email.me> <86ed6h9cxm.fsf@linuxsc.com> <slrnvce7ls.l93.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
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".
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
size_t best practice Mark Summerfield <mark@qtrac.eu> - 2024-08-18 08:03 +0000
Re: size_t best practice Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2024-08-18 08:38 +0000
Re: size_t best practice Mark Summerfield <mark@qtrac.eu> - 2024-08-18 10:15 +0000
Re: size_t best practice Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-20 07:38 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-18 12:36 +0300
Re: size_t best practice Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-18 04:32 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-18 15:40 +0300
Re: size_t best practice Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-18 15:23 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2024-08-19 11:13 +0300
Re: size_t best practice Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-19 09:43 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-18 14:57 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-20 06:53 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-20 06:55 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2024-08-20 06:56 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-22 01:38 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-22 01:31 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Ike Naar <ike@sdf.org> - 2024-08-22 11:19 +0000
Re: size_t best practice Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2024-08-22 06:12 -0700
Re: size_t best practice Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-24 19:49 +0200
Re: size_t best practice Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2024-08-25 06:30 +0200
Re: size_t best practice Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-25 06:53 +0200
Re: size_t best practice Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2024-08-26 21:39 +0100
Re: size_t best practice Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2024-08-27 18:11 +0200
csiph-web