[orbital223]

DYN_ARR_RESET should probably be called DYN_ARR_INIT instead, as calling it more than once will leak memory.

The handling of endptr in DYN_ARR_RESIZE seems to be incorrect. If I have an array with 2 elements and capacity of 3 and I DYN_ARR_RESIZE it to 5, I now have an array with 5 elements, 3 of which are garbage values.

[aslilac]

~~Isn't the handling of `endptr` incorrect in `DYN_ARR_RESET` as well? `a.endptr = a.data;` feels very incorrect to me.~~

Nevermind, I see how it's supposed to work now.

To your point, `RESIZE` is definitely incorrect. It should be checking the length before calling `realloc`.

[parasti]

Thats just idiomatic C. Set the "pointer to end" to be equal to the "pointer to start".

[matheusmoreira]

The values are garbage because they haven't been initialized yet. Other code may write to those locations.

[patrick451]

> The handling of endptr in DYN_ARR_RESIZE seems to be incorrect. If I have an array with 2 elements and capacity of 3 and I DYN_ARR_RESIZE it to 5, I now have an array with 5 elements, 3 of which are garbage values.

Why do you say this is wrong? That's exactly what I would expect.

[orbital223]

> Why do you say this is wrong?

Exposing uninitialized memory as valid values tends to be a really bad idea.

[nice_byte]

that's the intended behavior.

this somewhat mirrors what happens with a std::vector when you call resize() except of course c doesn't have default ctors. the point of resize is to make exactly "size" elements of the dynamic array addressable.