> for(size_t i = count - 1; i >= 0; i--){

> i >=0 is tautologically true (modern compilers will warn).

Note that a tautology in language design is an opportunity. Here the compiler could see what the programmer meant and do the right thing using the overflow flag (though the way this is written doesn't favor this).

I'm not recommending, I'm just saying compilers traditionally have just thrown their hands in the air, kicked the developer around with a stupid error message and called it a day. Apparently only recently they started emitting a warning.

The "best" developer was the one who took the abuse the "best tools" gave him in stride. Nowadays, in their "good faith", compilers don't warn you when they detect undefined behavior. They then go on to reinterpret your code, to show you they read the standards book and you didn't. They never questioning if the standards are wrong or out of date, they don't give you a optional warning like "maybe you didn't intend this, but i'm doing things behind your back?". They placate to the legalistic people that don't actually do the job.

The amount of abuse the developer is willing to take has been the self selecting bias in the industry for many decades. It's made us the heroes of the misplaced comma, changing the meaning of a sentence. A symptom is the lack of women in our profession. I welcome AI for liberating us from what's been hell more often than not.