It has the same behaviour indeed. You can check this example: http://cpp.sh/9y3pi, where min_element and max_element return the same element, for a collection of 2 elements. But this is arguably less troubling than the bug with max, because max_element doesn’t necessary accepts 2 elements, but rather a collection of N, which could be 1 or even 0. So you wouldn’t rely as much as the min being different from the max when you write code, I think.

Thanks for noticing Alexander, I’ve corrected this. And glad that you enjoyed the reading!

As far as I understand, yes, it is compiler specific.
Also it depends on level of optimization, my testing:
GCC 6.3.1 with “-O0” option prints “2”
GCC 6.3.1 with “-O2” option prints “0”
but clang 3.9.1 prints “2” in both cases.

This is what undefined behaviour about.
In gcc.godbolt.org you can see, that such code for GCC and clang works correctly with -O0, because he creates temporary values on stack for return values of get2 and get3, but compiler is not required to do that.