Reputation: 136
So this is my code. It should delete a sub-tree of a BST, "buscar" function is the search function, then it passes to "eliminar" the correct pointer and then I got confused with pointers. Should I free(*arbol)
or free(arbol)
?
struct s_nodo
{
struct s_nodo * der;
struct s_nodo * izq;
int valor;
};
typedef struct s_nodo * t_nodo;
void buscar (t_nodo * arbol,int num)
{
if(*arbol != NULL)
{
if((*arbol)->valor == num)
eliminar(arbol);
else
{
if((*arbol)->valor > num)
buscar(&(*arbol)->izq,num);
else if((*arbol)->valor < num)
buscar(&(*arbol)->der,num);
}
}
else
{
return;
}
}
void eliminar (t_nodo * arbol)
{
if(*arbol != NULL)
{
eliminar(&(*arbol)->izq);
eliminar(&(*arbol)->der);
free(*arbol); //problematic line
*arbol = NULL;
}
}
Upvotes: 1
Views: 132
Reputation: 753900
Your code is fine with free(*arbol)
. An SSCCE (Short, Self-Contained, Correct Example) demonstrates this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct s_nodo
{
struct s_nodo *der;
struct s_nodo *izq;
int valor;
};
typedef struct s_nodo *t_nodo;
static void eliminar(t_nodo *arbol)
{
if (*arbol != NULL)
{
eliminar(&(*arbol)->izq);
eliminar(&(*arbol)->der);
free(*arbol); //problematic line
*arbol = NULL;
}
}
static void buscar(t_nodo *arbol, int num)
{
if (*arbol != NULL)
{
if ((*arbol)->valor == num)
eliminar(arbol);
else
{
if ((*arbol)->valor > num)
buscar(&(*arbol)->izq, num);
else if ((*arbol)->valor < num)
buscar(&(*arbol)->der, num);
}
}
}
static void p_inorder(t_nodo node)
{
if (node != 0)
{
p_inorder(node->izq);
printf(" %d", node->valor);
p_inorder(node->der);
}
}
static void print(char *tag, t_nodo root)
{
printf("%s: ", tag);
p_inorder(root);
putchar('\n');
}
int main(void)
{
t_nodo left = malloc(sizeof(*left));
left->valor = 3;
left->izq = 0;
left->der = 0;
t_nodo right = malloc(sizeof(*right));
right->valor = 6;
right->izq = 0;
right->der = 0;
t_nodo root = malloc(sizeof(*root));
root->valor = 5;
root->izq = left;
root->der = right;
print("Before", root);
buscar(&root, 3);
print("After", root);
free(right);
free(root);
return 0;
}
When run on Ubuntu 13.10 with valgrind
, you get a clean bill of health.
==6217== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==6217== Copyright (C) 2002-2012, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==6217== Using Valgrind-3.8.1 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==6217== Command: ./bst3
==6217==
Before: 3 5 6
After: 5 6
==6217==
==6217== HEAP SUMMARY:
==6217== in use at exit: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==6217== total heap usage: 3 allocs, 3 frees, 72 bytes allocated
==6217==
==6217== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible
==6217==
==6217== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==6217== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 2 from 2)
I also ran a variant of the program which deleted value 5 (and did not explicitly free right
or root
); the 'After' tree was empty and valgrind
was equally happy.
I also completely agree with the comment by WhozCraig that embedding a pointer in the typedef
for a non-opaque type is apt to be confusing — I would have written:
typedef struct Node Node;
since the structure tag name space is separate from the ordinary identifiers name space, and would never write:
typedef struct Node *pNode;
Think of FILE
in <stdio.h>
; you always use FILE *
everywhere; I'd use Node *
everywhere I passed a pointer to a Node
, and Node **
when relevant.
See also typedef
pointers — a good idea?
What happens with
free(arbol)
because that works on my PC?
`valgrind` gets justifiably upset:
==6284== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==6284== Copyright (C) 2002-2012, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==6284== Using Valgrind-3.8.1 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==6284== Command: ./bst3
==6284==
Before: 3 5 6
==6284== Invalid free() / delete / delete[] / realloc()
==6284== at 0x4C2B60C: free (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==6284== by 0x400C23: eliminar (bst3.c:18)
==6284== by 0x400636: main (bst3.c:28)
==6284== Address 0x51fc108 is 8 bytes inside a block of size 24 alloc'd
==6284== at 0x4C2A2DB: malloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==6284== by 0x4005D5: main (bst3.c:66)
==6284==
==6284== Invalid write of size 8
==6284== at 0x4011BB: eliminar (bst3.c:19)
==6284== by 0x400636: main (bst3.c:28)
==6284== Address 0x51fc100 is 0 bytes inside a block of size 24 free'd
==6284== at 0x4C2B60C: free (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==6284== by 0x4011BA: eliminar (bst3.c:18)
==6284== by 0x400636: main (bst3.c:28)
==6284==
==6284== Invalid free() / delete / delete[] / realloc()
==6284== at 0x4C2B60C: free (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==6284== by 0x4011CA: eliminar (bst3.c:18)
==6284== by 0x400636: main (bst3.c:28)
==6284== Address 0x7fefffda0 is on thread 1's stack
==6284==
After:
==6284==
==6284== HEAP SUMMARY:
==6284== in use at exit: 48 bytes in 2 blocks
==6284== total heap usage: 3 allocs, 3 frees, 72 bytes allocated
==6284==
==6284== LEAK SUMMARY:
==6284== definitely lost: 48 bytes in 2 blocks
==6284== indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==6284== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==6284== still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==6284== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==6284== Rerun with --leak-check=full to see details of leaked memory
==6284==
==6284== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==6284== ERROR SUMMARY: 3 errors from 3 contexts (suppressed: 2 from 2)
This was for the second case I tested: the tail of the main()
was:
print("Before", root);
buscar(&root, 5);
print("After", root);
return 0;
}
Upvotes: 1