C内存泄漏，哪里没有内存泄漏？ （瓦尔格林德）

Question

valgrind is telling me that a specific line in my code creates a memory leak, but when looking at that line, it does not seem to even be able to create one.

I am working with this pretty simple Linked List struct list.h:

typedef struct _linekd_list{
    void* object;
    struct _linked_list* next;
}linked_list;

And this is how a list is initialized in list.c:

linked_list* newlist(){
    linked_list * list = malloc(sizeof(linked_list));
    list->next = NULL;  //As a flag, that there is no next element
    list->object = NULL;
    return list;
}

My queue works so, that the first object of the first linked_list is always NULL, the first object is stored in the next linked_list.

Now here is where the memory leak occurs:

int list_add(void* new_object, linked_list* list){
        while(list->next != NULL) {  //First go to the end of the queue
            list = list->next;
        }
        list->next = malloc(sizeof(linked_list)); //Vangrind says there is a leak
        list->next->next = NULL; //Set the next list-object to NULL (acts like a flag)
        list->next->object = new_object; //And now store the pointer of the actual object
        if(list->next->object == new_object) {
            return 0;
        } else {
            return 1;
        }
    return 0;
}

This is what valgrind tells me:

==33369== 16 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1 of 3
==33369==    at 0x483B7F3: malloc (in /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==33369==    by 0x402219: list_add (list.c:11)
==33369==    by 0x4012D0: main (test_list.c:38)
==33369== 

Here is the function that recursively frees the list (no memory leak detected):

void free_list(linked_list* list){
    if(list->next != NULL) {
        free_list(list->next);
        free(list);
    }
}

Answer 1

You don't free the last node in the list.

free_list does nothing if list->next is NULL . But you don't want to do nothing. You want to not recurse, but you still need to free the node. So move the call to free out of the conditional, or change the test to check whether list itself is NULL