"Vic Abell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > *last = t; > > last = &t->next > > If t == NULL, won't &t->next attempt to de-reference a > NULL pointer?
Yes, but I didn't show all of the code I commited. Check the CVS version of files.c > Isn't last (currently) supposed to point to the end > of the chain whose head is contained in pl? Yes, it does, by design. 'last = &pl' means that it points to the "end" of the chain, when 'pl == NULL' When it's updated, and one new entry is added, we do: *last = new_entry last = &(new_entry->next) And we never need to touch 'pl' again. > I thought last was used to help extend pl's chain. I don't see how > the chain whose pointer is returned in t is linked to the end of > pl's chain via last->next. Because it never looks at 'last->next'. last is a ptr to a ptr, not a ptr. > Perhaps I'm not seeing the full context of your change. Go read the code. Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
