The C23 edition of Modern C

Post by jpcfl » Wed, Oct 16, 2024, 12:36 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #42

card_zero wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people choose to use pre-increment by default instead of post-increment? Why is that?

It should be ++C because with C++ the value you get from the expression is the old one. If you're asking why people use pre-increment by default instead of post-increment, it's mostly historical. The early C compilers on resource-constrained platforms such as early DOS were not good at optimization; on those, pre-increment would be reliably translated to a simple ADD or INC, whereas code for post-increment might gene…

Post by trealira » Wed, Oct 16, 2024, 12:54 AM UTC

tialaramex wrote: post #40

card_zero wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people choose to use pre-increment by default instead of post-increment? Why is that?

Why use this operator? Like most C and C++ features the main reason tends to be showing off, you learned a thing (in this case that there are four extra operators here) and so you show off by using it even if it doesn't make the software easier to understand. This is not one of those beginner -> journeyman -> expert cycles where coincidentally the way you wrote it as a beginner is identical to how an expert writes it…

  void remove_char(char *s, char c) {
    size_t i, j;

    for (i = j = 0; s[i] != '\0'; i++)
      if (s[i] != c)
        s[j++] = c;
    s[j] = '\0';
  }

Post by trealira » Wed, Oct 16, 2024, 1:20 AM UTC

layer8 wrote: post #68

WalterBright wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern C still promptly decays an array to a pointer, so no array bounds checking is possible. D does not decay arrays, so D has array bounds checking. Note that array overflow bugs are consistently the #1 problem with shipped C code, by a wide margin.

> no array bounds checking is possible. This isn’t strictly true, a C implementation is allowed to associate memory-range (or more generally, pointer provenance) metadata with a pointer. The DeathStation 9000 features a conforming C implementation which is known to catch all array bounds violations. ;)

Post by Maxatar » Wed, Oct 16, 2024, 1:58 AM UTC

ahoka wrote: post #82

uecker wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UB is does not automatically make things unsafe. You can have a compiler that implements safe defaults for most UB, and then it is not unsafe.

By definition UB cannot be safe.

Post by TZubiri » Wed, Oct 16, 2024, 2:10 AM UTC

layer8 wrote: post #142

TZubiri wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, why have any type of human interaction in a forum when you can just refer your fellow brethren to the automaton.

I’m saying this because any explanation I could offer would provide less insight than the Google results.