Thread: Freeing a linked list -- possible bug.

I've encountered the following code in a book I'm reading. It is given as an example for free()'ing a linked list. I believe that there is a bug in the highlighted part -- a freed memory location is being accessed.

Am I right in thinking this, or have I misunderstood something?

Code:

    current = head;
    while (current != NULL)
    {
        free(current);
        current = current->next;
    }

Already have (hopefully).

Code:

    current = head;
    while (current != NULL)
    {
        temp = current->next;
        free(current);
        current = temp;
    }

There you go.

However, you forgot to declare temp...

Code:

  struct whatever temp;    // declare temp as struct type.
 current = head;

 while (current != NULL)
    {  temp = current->next;
        free(current);
        current = temp;
    }

You know your lessons are sinking in when you find your teacher's mistakes

However, you forgot to declare temp...

Temp shouldn't be type struct whatever, it should be struct whatever *.

I have a feeling that if msh is able to write code to delete a linked list, he knows how to declare his variables and probably left it out on purpose.

Also, might be worth letting the authors of the book know about the mistake if you can. If it's a recent book then the mistake can be corrected in future editions.

Originally Posted by DeadPlanet

Temp shouldn't be type struct whatever, it should be struct whatever *.

I have a feeling that if msh is able to write code to delete a linked list, he knows how to declare his variables and probably left it out on purpose.

Also, might be worth letting the authors of the book know about the mistake if you can. If it's a recent book then the mistake can be corrected in future editions.

Thanks. It's indeed declared at the beginning of main(), along with the other variables.

I'll definitely mail this to the authors. They have an errata for the previous edition up, but not for this.