At least this statement array->values = realloc(array->values, array->capacity); shall be rewritten like array->values = realloc(array->values, array->capacity * sizeof( Value ) ); Though it would be more safer to use an intermediate pointer like for example Value *tmp = realloc(array->values, array->capacity…
Even I get an warning a function returns an address from local variable, it compiles. Isn’t it then UB of compiler? No, but if it were, how could you tell? You seem to have a misunderstanding of undefined behavior. It…
If you have an array declared like int a[N]; where N is some positive integer value then the valid range of indices to access elements of the array is [0, N). It means that for example this for loop for(i=1;i<=10;i++)…
Yes. It is implementation-defined. According to C++03 5.8/3 which defines right-shifting: The value of E1 >> E2 is E1 right-shifted E2 bit positions. If E1 has an unsigned type or if E1 has a signed type and a nonnegative value,…
C standard says: C11: 6.5 (p2): If a side effect on a scalar object is unsequenced relative to either a different side effect on the same scalar object or a value computation using the value of the same scalar object,…
First of all, C functions are call-by-value: the int x arg in the function is a copy. Modifying it doesn’t modify the caller’s copy of whatever they passed, so your swap makes zero sense. Second, you’re using the return value…
To see why the note in Appendix J.2 is compatible with a[b] being the same as *(a + b), consider how an expression like a[1][7] is interpreted (assuming the declaration int a[4][5], like in the appendix): a[1][7] is the same…
will I get undefined behaviour by not including all 3 variables into every condition? The behaviour of not including all variables into every condition is not undefined by itself. Will every unaccounted for condition go into the else statement? Statement-false…