So I\'m using size_t instead of int in any indexing for loop to prevent negative indices. But when counting down, this leads to an overflow:
size_t i = 10; i >= 0; is never false as size_t is some unsigned type and all values are greater than or equal to zero.
...
size_twhich is the unsigned integer type of the result of thesizeofoperator; ...
C11 §7.19 2
A good compiler with warnings enabled would have warned about this.
Hopefully, that infinite loop would never had occurred as an investigation to the warning would have first rectified the problem.
Best alternative depends on coding goals
Good code avoids magic numbers like this naked 10. Better if code derived that. In this simple case, it should have been 11.
#define A_SIZE 11
int array[A_SIZE];
...
for (size_t i = A_SIZE; i-- > 0; ) {
// Do something, f.ex. array[i] = i
}
OTOH, code may have had break conditions in the loop and needs i in later code to indicate array[] usages
size_t i = A_SIZE;
while (i > 0) {
if (...) break;
i--;
// Do something, f.ex. array[i] = i
if (...) break;
}
// Do something with i
Code may have a contract requirement to use a 10 in various places.
// Contract says loop must handle indexes 0 to N, inclusive
#define N 10
int array[N + 1];
for (size_t i = N; i + 1 > 0; i--) {
// Do something, f.ex. array[i] = i
}
Good optimizing compilers will not perform a +1 on each i + 1 > 0, but create equivalent efficient code.
Code is a fashion that best conveys the overall meaning of the code.