Linked List destructor in C++: should I delete? - c++

Question

I've start implementing some data structures in C++, starting from Linked Lists.
Coming from a Java background, I'm still wrapping my head around pointers and objects lifespans.
LinkedList:
struct Node
{
int data;
Node *next;
};
class LinkedList
{
private:
Node *head;
Node *tail;
int length;
public:
LinkedList();
~LinkedList();
void addToHead(Node &newHead);
void popHead();
void printList();
};
and then I've implemented it like this:
LinkedList::LinkedList()
{
head = NULL;
tail = NULL;
length = 0;
}
LinkedList::~LinkedList(){}
void LinkedList::addToHead(Node& newHead)
{
newHead.next = head;
head = &newHead;
length++;
}
void LinkedList::popHead()
{
Node *currHead = head;
head = head->next;
length--;
}
void LinkedList::printList()
{
Node *curr = head;
while(curr)
{
curr = curr->next;
}
}
Lastly there's a simple main:
int main()
{
LinkedList list;
Node n1 = {3};
Node n2 = {4};
Node n3 = {5};
list.addToHead(n1);
list.addToHead(n2);
list.addToHead(n3);
list.printList();
list.popHead();
list.printList();
return 0;
}
This a rather naive implementation, and I was wondering if I had to provide a proper destructor which deletes the Node* pointers upon iteration.
Whenever I've tried to add it, the program results in a memory error, and I was thinking that the memory being allocated is being also deallocated at the end of the main, since all the Node*s live there.
Should I fix my destructor? Should I change the whole interface?
Thanks in advance!

Answer 1

Although there are no memory leaks in your code as it stands, I think you should change your interface.
Your linked list isn't doing what you probably think its doing - taking ownership of its contents. A linked list that doesn't own its contents is a strange beast and probably something you did not intend.
One easy way to make it take ownership is to change your design to use std::unique_ptr instead of raw pointers. Your addToHead function would then be change to take std::unique_ptr r-value references pointers (or simply raw pointers that create new std::unique_ptr internally if that's too advanced)
Here is your implementation changed to use std::unique_ptr. Its a bit rough-and-ready, but should get you on your way:
#include <memory>
struct Node
{
Node(int i) : data(i)
{}
int data;
std::unique_ptr<Node> next;
};
class LinkedList
{
private:
std::unique_ptr<Node> head;
Node *tail;
int length;
public:
LinkedList();
~LinkedList();
void addToHead(std::unique_ptr<Node>&& newHead);
void popHead();
void printList();
};
LinkedList::LinkedList()
{
head = NULL;
tail = NULL;
length = 0;
}
LinkedList::~LinkedList(){}
void LinkedList::addToHead(std::unique_ptr<Node>&& newHead)
{
newHead->next = std::move(head);
head = std::move(newHead);
length++;
}
void LinkedList::popHead()
{
head = std::move(head->next);
length--;
}
void LinkedList::printList()
{
auto* curr = head.get();
while(curr)
{
curr = curr->next.get();
}
}
int main()
{
LinkedList list;
list.addToHead(std::make_unique<Node>(3));
list.addToHead(std::make_unique<Node>(4));
list.addToHead(std::make_unique<Node>(5));
list.printList();
list.popHead();
list.printList();
return 0;
}