Allocate memory for a linked list struct with or without casting?

Asked Feb 06 '18 at 13:10

Active Feb 06 '18 at 13:10

Viewed 32 times

after figuring out, how the linked lists stuff works in C I was just wondering how to correctly allocate a new node.

So lets say my linkedlist is defined with the following struct:

typdef struct NewNode
{
  int data;
  struct node *next;
} Node;

Now I'm going to create a new temporary node for whatever reason:

node *temp = (node*) malloc(sizeof(node);

Do I need the cast (node*) or can I as I've seen in couple tutorials leave this without the casting. If not can you tell me what possible errors could occur as my implementation without the casting is completly working.

node *temp = malloc(sizeof(node);

asked Feb 06 '18 at 13:10

Richie

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/605845/do-i-cast-the-result-of-malloc – Giorgi Moniava Feb 06 '18 at 13:11
1

[In C you don't need the cast (only in C++, where you shouldn't be using `malloc` anyway).](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/605845/do-i-cast-the-result-of-malloc) – Paul R Feb 06 '18 at 13:11
This is quite popular on this site. In C, you don't cast the result of `malloc()` and its friends. – machine_1 Feb 06 '18 at 13:12
1

Neither is completely wrong, yet better to use `node *temp = malloc(sizeof *temp);`. – chux - Reinstate Monica Feb 06 '18 at 13:23

Allocate memory for a linked list struct with or without casting?

0 Answers0