On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 17:13:49 +0200 Bart wrote:
BVA> > entry = itr_first;
BVA> > for( ; entry; ++itr) {
BVA> > // ...
BVA> > if (condition) {
BVA> > itr_remove;
BVA> > continue;
BVA> > }
BVA> > // ...
BVA> > }
BVA> >
BVA>
BVA> If "++itr" accesses the memory itr points at, the above pseudocode will
BVA> trigger an access to already freed memory (freed by itr_remove).
Sorry, I guess that should be itr_remove_current_item, as that's what it really
does. As for the ++itr, let me try again..
entry = itr_first;
for( ; entry; entry = itr_next) {
// ...
if (condition) {
itr_remove_current_item;
continue;
}
// ...
}
BVA> > I suppose another option is for remove to set a flag, and have ++itr not
BVA> > actually advance if an item was removed... That should work for singly
BVA> > linked lists to... Thoughts?
BVA>
BVA> Is the above approach in your opinion really simpler than what I proposed ?
Yes, because it's doen internal to the iterator. Your solution would require
anyone using the iterator to do the pointer juggling every time...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
