Hacker News Reader

Comment by nice_byte | Hacker News Reader

I have been using this for years. Capacity is not size. A zero size array will have non zero capacity. All c code is unsafe.

View on HN

Where do you check that capacity is nonzero? When capacity is zero, what happens on this line?

     a.capacity <<= 1u;

"all c code is unsafe" is not an excuse to permit bloody obvious, undocumented memory overruns.

I write a lot of c. Avoiding the unsafe bits, avoiding UB, is the skill required to write good c. "C code is unsafe" is a Rustacean marketing slogan. Don't believe it, but definitely don't practice it.

just don't initialize it with 0 capacity :-)

Why not just fix it? It's a trivial fix and has the added benefit that a zero-initialized DYN_ARR_OF(x) struct would be in a valid state, which is always nice. A struct with several dynamic arrays can then much simpler to initialize, for example.

For a library, if the user input is wrong, throw an error or an assertion failure. It shouldn't be causing an uninformative segmentation fault which your library does. The fix is a trivial. Why so defensive?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com