I want the value of a pointer variable to be initialized to NULL at the start of the execution. This variable is used in a function and its value may also get changed within the function. But I do not want the value of this variable to reset to NULL whenever a function call is made. Instead, its value should be equal to the updated value from its previous function call. Cannot use global variables.
void function(struct node *variable) {
// changes value of pointer variable to something else
variable = something;
}
void another_function(void) {
// have to be initialised before passing in as argument or else will raise error
struct node *variable = NULL;
function(variable);
}
// then calling this function multiple times in main
another_function();
another_function();
help would be much appreciated.
Firstly, the pointer variable variable is local to another_function. It does not live outside of this scope.
Secondly, when you pass it to function, the variable parameter of that function is also local to that function. You immediately assign a value to that local variable, but that doesn't change the variable you passed in.
You can use the static keyword when declaring your initial pointer variable.
It will only be initialized when first encountered during the execution.
But as for now, your code will probably not do what you intend it to do.
The pointer variable in function is local and will have no effect on the value of variable in another_function.
You should use a pointer of pointer (also called a double-pointer or a nested pointer) for this effect.
Here is an example of how to use a double-pointer :
struct node {
int value;
};
void function(struct node** variable) {
if(*variable == NULL) {
*variable = (struct node*)malloc(sizeof(struct node));
(*variable)->value = 1;
}
printf("Value of variable is %d\n", (*variable)->value);
// Creating another struct node just for the demonstration
struct node* newnode = (struct node*)malloc(sizeof(struct node));
newnode->value = (*variable)->value + 1;
*variable = newnode;
}
void another_function() {
static struct node* variable = NULL;
function(&variable);
}
Basically, you pass the address of a pointer (located on the stack, which will always have a memory address) which let you modify the content of this pointer (a memory address on the heap) in the receiving function.
When you are dereferencing variable in function, what you get is not a value but another pointer.
Also parenthesis are important in this case.
Nested pointers can really be confusing, I hope that my explanation is somewhat clear.
To really understand how it works you need to understand what it's on the stack and what it's on the heap. But maybe this is an explanation for another time.
Of course, there is no memory management in this example and what I wrote contains memory leaks from all struct node that never are deallocated.
You should figure out how to do it depending on your program architecture.
Related
I have a structure like this
struct node
{
int data;
struct node* next;
};
Which I use to create singly linked list.
I created other functions like
int push(struct node* head,int element);
which pushes data onto stack created using node structs.
The function then tries to update the struct node* head passed to it using code(it does other things as well)
head=(struct node*)malloc(sizeof(struct node));
The call is made as such
struct node* stack;
push(stack,number);
It looks like this code created copy of the pointer passed to it. So I had to change the function to
int push(struct node** head,int element)
and
*head=(struct node*)malloc(sizeof(struct node));
The call is made as such
struct node* stack;
push(&stack,number);
So my question is, what was the earlier function doing? Is it necessary to pass struct node** to the function if I want to update original value of pointer or is my approach wrong?
Sorry I cannot provide complete code as it is an assignment.
C always passes by value. To change a variable passed to a function, instead of passing the variable itself, you pass a reference(its address).
Let's say you're calling your function with the old signature
int push(struct node* head,int element);
struct node *actual_head = NULL;
push(actual_head, 3);
Now before calling push, your variable actual_head will have value as NULL.
Inside the push function, a new variable head will be pushed to stack. It will have the same value as passed to it, i.e. NULL.
Then when you call head = malloc(...), your variable head will get a new value instead of actual_head which you wanted to.
To mitigate the above, you'll have to change the signature of your function to
int push(struct node** head,int element);
struct node *actual_head = NULL
push(&actual_head, 3);
Now if you notice carefully, the value of actual_head is NULL, but this pointer is also stored somewhere, that somewhere is its address &actual_head. Let's take this address as 1234.
Now inside the push function, your variable head which can hold the address of a pointer(Notice the two *), will have the value of 1234
Now when you do *head = malloc(...), you're actually changing the value of the object present at location 1234, which is your actual_head object.
C always passes parameters by value (i.e., by copying it). This applies even to pointers, but in that case, it is the pointer itself that is copied. Most of the times you use pointers, that is fine, because you are interested in manipulating the data that is pointed to by the pointer. However, in your situation, you want to modify the pointer itself, so you do indeed have to use a pointer to a pointer.
Yes.
The first version of your program was passing the pointer by value. Although it passed an address (held by the pointer to struct) it didn't pass the pointer's address - necessary to update the value.
Whenever you want to update a variable's value you must pass the variable's address. To pass a pointer address, you need a parameter pointer to pointer to type.
In your case, pointer to pointer to struct node.
The code is not doing what you think but not because it creates a copy of the node, it creates a copy of the pointer.
Try printing
fprintf(stdout, "Address of head: %p\n", (void *) head);
both, inside push() and in the caller function.
The pointer you pass in and the parameter have different addresses in memory although they both point to the same address, storing the result of malloc() in it doesn't persist after the funcion has returned.
You need to pass a pointer to the pointer like this
int push(struct node **head, int element)
{
/* Ideally, check if `head' is `NULL' and find the tail otherwise */
*head = malloc(sizeof(**head));
if (*node == NULL)
return SOME_ERROR_VALUE;
/* Do the rest here */
return SOME_SUCCESS_VALUE_LIKE_0;
}
And to call it, just
struct node *head;
head = NULL;
push(&head, value);
/* ^ take the address of head and pass a pointer with it */
of course, the push() implementation should be very differente but I think you will get the idea.
Everything everybody has said is absolutely correct in terms of your question. However, I think you should also consider the design. Part of your problem is that you are conflating the stack itself with the internal structures needed to store data on it. You should have a stack object and a node object. i.e.
struct Node
{
int data;
struct Node* next;
}
struct Stack
{
struct Node* head;
}
Your push function can then take a pointer to the Stack without any double indirection. Plus there is no danger of pushing something on to a node that is in the middle of the stack.
void push(struct Stack* stack, int value)
{
struct Node* node = malloc(sizeof node);
node->data = value;
node->next = stack->head;
stack->head = node;
}
The function
int push(struct node* head,int element) {
head=(struct node*)malloc(sizeof(struct node));
}
allocate some memory and throw it away (cause memory leak).
Passing “pointer to structure” to a function do create local copies of it.
It is necessary to pass struct node** to the function if you want to update original value of pointer. (using global variables is generally considered as a bad idea)
When you pass stack to your function push(struct node* head,int element)
and do
head=(struct node*)malloc(sizeof(struct node));
The pointer head will update to the memory allocated by malloc() and stack is unaware of this memory as you just passed the value.(which is uninitialized here)
When you pass the address then you have a pointer to pointer which makes the changes inside push() to be reflected on stack
So my question is, what was the earlier function doing?
Your earlier function was defined to receive a pointer to an object. You passed your function an uninitialized struct node pointer. A function can't do anything with a value representing an uninitialized pointer. So your function was passed garbage, but no harm was done because your function immediately ignored it by overwriting with a pointer to allocated memory. Your function is not using the value you passed for anything except temporary local storage now. Upon return from your function, your parameters to the function are thrown away (they are just copies), and the value of your stack variable is as it was before, still uninitialized. The compiler usually warns you about using a variable before it is initialized.
By the way, the pointer value to the allocated memory was also thrown away/lost upon function return. So there would now be a location in memory with no reference and therefore no way to free it up, i.e., you have a memory leak.
Is it necessary to pass struct node** to the function if I want to update original value of pointer or is my approach wrong?
Yes, it is necessary to pass the address of a variable that you want filled in by the function being called. It must be written to accept a pointer to the type of data it will supply. Since you are referencing your object with a pointer, and since your function is generating a pointer to your object, you must pass a pointer to a pointer to your object.
Alternatively, you can return a pointer as a value from a function, for example
struct node * Function() { return (struct node *)malloc(sizeof(struct node)); }
The call would be...
struct node *stack;
stack = Function();
if(stack == NULL) { /* handle failure */ }
So, your approach is not wrong, just your implementation (and understanding) need work.
My question is an extension of this: Returning pointer to a local structure
I wrote the following code to create an empty list:
struct node* create_empty_list(void)
{
struct node *head = NULL;
return head;
}
I just read that returning pointers to local variables is useless, since the variable will be destroyed when the function exits. I believe the above code is returning a NULL pointer, so I don't think it's a pointer to a local variable.
Where is the memory allocated to the pointer in this case. I didn't allocate any memory on the heap, and it should be on the stack, as an automatic variable. But what happens when the code exits (to the pointer), if I try to use it in the program, by assigning this pointer some pointees / de-referencing and alike?
struct node* create_empty_list(void)
{
struct node *head = NULL;
return head;
}
is equivalent to:
struct node* create_empty_list(void)
{
return NULL;
}
which is perfectly fine.
The problem would happen if you had something like:
struct node head;
return &head; // BAD, returning a pointer to an automatic object
Here, you are returning the value of a local variable, which is OK:
struct node* create_empty_list()
{
struct node* head = NULL;
return head;
}
The value of head, which happens to be NULL (0), is copied into the stack before function create_empty_list returns. The calling function would typically copy this value into some other variable.
For example:
void some_func()
{
struct node* some_var = create_empty_list();
...
}
In each of the examples below, you would be returning the address of a local variable, which is not OK:
struct node* create_empty_list()
{
struct node head = ...;
return &head;
}
struct node** create_empty_list()
{
struct node* head = ...;
return &head;
}
The address of head, which may be a different address every time function create_empty_list is called (depending on the state of the stack at that point), is returned. This address, which is typically a 4-byte value or an 8-byte value (depending on your system's address space), is copied into the stack before the function returns. You may use this value "in any way you like", but you should not rely on the fact that it represents the memory address of a valid variable.
A few basic facts about variables, that are important for you to understand:
Every variable has an address and a value.
The address of a variable is constant (i.e., it cannot change after you declare the variable).
The value of a variable is not constant (unless you explicitly declare it as a const variable).
With the word pointer being used, it is implied that the value of the variable is by itself the address of some other variable. Nonetheless, the pointer still has its own address (which is unrelated to its value).
Please note that the description above does not apply for arrays.
As others have mentioned, you are returning value, what is perfectly fine.
However, if you had changed functions body to:
struct node head;
return &head;
you would return address (pointer to) local variable and that could be potentially dangerous as it is allocated on the stack and freed immediately after leaving function body.
If you changed your code to:
struct node * head = (struct node *) malloc( sizeof( struct node ) );;
return head;
Then you are returning value of local value, that is pointer to heap-allocated memory which will remain valid until you call free on it.
Answering
Where is the memory allocated to the pointer in this case. I didn't
allocate any memory on the heap, and it should be on the stack, as an
automatic variable. But what happens when the code exits (to the
pointer), if I try to use it in the program, by assigning this pointer
some pointees / de-referencing and alike?
There is no memory allocated to the pointer in your case. There is memory allocated to contain the pointer, which is on the stack, but since it is pointing to NULL it doesn't point to any usable memory. Also, you shouldn't worry about that your pointer is on the stack, because returning it would create a copy of the pointer.
(As others mentioned) memory is allocated on the stack implicitly when you declare objects in a function body. As you probably know (judging by your question), memory is allocated on the heap by explicitly requesting so (using malloc in C).
If you try to dereference your pointer you are going to get a segmentation fault. You can assign to it, as this would just overwrite the NULL value. To make sure you don't get a segmentation fault, you need to check that the list that you are using is not the NULL pointer. For example here is an append function:
struct node
{
int elem;
struct node* next;
};
struct node* append(struct node* list, int el) {
// save the head of the list, as we would be modifying the "list" var
struct node* res = list;
// create a single element (could be a separate function)
struct node* nn = (struct node*)malloc(sizeof(struct node));
nn->elem = el;
nn->next = NULL;
// if the given list is not empty
if (NULL != list) {
// find the end of the list
while (NULL != list->next) list = list->next;
// append the new element
list->next = nn;
} else {
// if the given list is empty, just return the new element
res = nn;
}
return res;
}
The crucial part is the if (NULL != list) check. Without it, you would try to dereference list, and thus get a segmentation fault.
I'm a little unclear on this part of C, since it's a bit unlike other languages I've used, but this may just be a dumb question. I'm trying to implement a stack. I have the node struct, it has the information I want to pass:
struct position{
int square[2];
int counter;
struct position *prev;
};
so in main, I declare and initialize the bottom node of the stack, set *prev to NULL, then declare the rest. My question is, what happens when I try to pass it to function pop? I can create a position object that points to this one and return that, but will it be pushed off the stack when the function closes? Or should I return the position and set that equal to a new position object in main? What if I decide to create several of these nodes in a function? Will they remain once the function closes?
Edit: mah reminded me of my followup question which is, if they don't exist outside of the function, should I use malloc to create the space in the memory for them?
The lifetime of your objects depend on where they're created; if you declare for example a structure within a block of code (where a block is everything inside { and its matching }), that structure is no longer valid once execution leaves the block. Pointers to that structure are only valid as long as the structure is valid.
For what you're describing, you want to dynamically allocate your structures, using either malloc() or a similar function. Dynamically allocated data will remain valid (assuming you do not overwrite it) until you free() the memory, or until your program terminates. Pointers to these areas of memory will remain valid for that same period of time.
Consider:
static struct position *topOfStack = NULL;
void push(struct position *node)
{
node->prev = topOfStack;
topOfStack = node;
}
struct position *pop()
{
struct position *popped = topOfStack;
if (topOfStack) topOfStack = topOfStack->pref;
return popped;
}
To use this, you can:
f() {
struct position *node = malloc(sizeof(*node));
/* ... fill in node details ... */
push(node);
}
Notice that I allocated the node dynamically. Had I just declared a struct position node;, I could legally call push(&node); but once my function left scope, the stack would have an invalid item in it (which would likely cause havoc).
what happens when I try to pass it to function pop?
it depends on your pop() function prototype. If the pop's function prototype should be:
struct position* pop(struct position* stack);
I can create a position object that points to this one and return that, but will it be pushed off the stack when the function closes?
your question is quite unclear, and it looks like a big misunderstanding of instance scoping in C. Basically, you have two ways to allocate variables, either on the stack or on the heap. The scoping you're talking about is stack instances scope.
What if I decide to create several of these nodes in a function? Will they remain once the function closes?
basically, if you use the stack, they will live as long as the scope they're declared in. In C, scope is defined by { and }. for example:
int main() {
struct position pos1;
struct position pos2;
struct position pos3;
pos3.prev = pos2;
pos2.prev = pos1;
pos1.prev = NULL;
pop(&pos3);
}
there you declare 3 variables, and associate them, and the pop function just resets the .prev link. But for a stack that kind of architecture is not really useful, because it is quite limited.
There you definitely need to push your instances in the heap, thus using malloc() and free():
// push() pseudocode:
// take stack, iterate over each prev until prev is NULL
// allocate prev with malloc() the same way as for "stack" in main()
// insert values in prev
void push(struct position* stack, int* value);
// pop() pseudocode:
// take stack, iterate over each prev until prev->prev is NULL,
// then keep prev->prev in a temporary variable
// set prev to NULL
// return temporary variable (former prev->prev)
struct position* pop(struct position* stack);
int main() {
int value[2];
struct position* stack = malloc(sizeof(struct position));
// value is what you want to push to the stack
value[0] = 42;
value[1] = 42;
push(stack, value);
value[0] = 2;
value[1] = 20;
push(stack, value);
struct position* pos;
pos = pop(stack);
// do something with pos->value
free(pos);
}
there you create a pointer to a node for which you allocate some memory in the heap. the push() function is allocating some new memory, assigning .prev for that new space to stack's address and populating that memory with the value. pop() should get to the value before the last one, reset its pointer to that value, and return that value.
Of course, I'm just giving concepts and ideas here, I'm leaving you get to the real implementation. One advice though, instead of using square that contains an array, use two separate values in your struct, that will make it simpler for a first implementation.
I am creating a simple binary search tree.When I am calling the add method using head pointer,changes made in the method are not reflected to this head pointer.It still points null.
struct node *add(struct node *root,int data)
{
if (root==NULL)
{
root=(struct node *) malloc(sizeof(struct node));
root->data=data;
root->left=NULL;
root->right=NULL;
return root;
}
else
{
if (data<=root->data)
{
root->left=add(root->left,data);
}
else
{
root->right=add(root->right,data);
}
return root;
}
}
I am calling the function as
struct node *head=NULL;
add(head,1);
add(head,3);
add(head,15);
In my understanding, on calling the add method, root=head, so head would point to the same memory location where root is pointing and should be updated with the changing value of root accordingly.
UPDATE
head=add(head,1);
When you pass a pointer (node* here), you just copy the value of the memory address it's pointing to, you can change the contents of this address in the function, but the pointer outside of it would still contain the same address.
Initially you have head = NULL, it's not pointing anywhere. When you call the function you create a local variable called root, and copy the value of the pointer (NULL) into that. You then allocate some space and change root to point there, but changes to the local variable would be lost once you leave the function, and head outside will continue holding the value NULL. You actually lost the memory you allocated as no one points there any longer (valgrind could have told you that).
If you passed &head to the function instead (the type would then be node**, note that you'd have to use *root inside the function this way), the changes would be made directly on the outside variable (thanks to the fact c would actually pass the address where main() allocated it on the stack directly to the function).
By the way, in c++, Passing the value by reference would emulate the same thing internally and would be even simpler (you'll be able to keep your code referring to root as is).
Alternatively, you can just return the value of the new head pointer from the function. This would limit you to a single return value though (which is fine in this case)
I have found this piece of code in a book:
void DeleteList(element *head)
{
element *next, *deleteMe;
deleteMe = head;
while (deleteMe) {
next = deleteMe->next;
free(deleteMe);
deleteMe = next;
}
}
Assuming that the argument that we are passing to the function is the pointer to the head of the list, why are we not passing a reference to that pointer?
If we don't do that, aren't we just going to delete a local copy of that pointer? That is why we pass reference pointers right? So the callee get the changes that have been done inside the function?
If we don't do that, aren't we just going to delete a local copy of that pointer?
Well, there is no such thing as a reference in C, but I assume you mean a pointer-to-pointer, and the answer would be no.
You are freeing the memory that the pointer points to on the heap, not the pointer itself. You are not mutating the pointer, so a copy is fine. Regardless of whether it is a copy or not, they point to the same place.
You are confusing this with assigning a completely new value to a variable passed to a function, in which case you would need to take a pointer-to-pointer. for example:
// only changes the local copy
void init(some_type *foo) {
foo = malloc(sizeof(some_type));
}
// initializes the value at *foo for the caller to see
void init(some_type **foo) {
*foo = malloc(sizeof(some_type));
}
Passing a pointer to a pointer (not a reference to a pointer, because C does not have references at all) would be a better solution, because you'd be able to null it out after the deletion. As it is currently defined, the function may leave dangling pointers behind if its caller is not careful. Other than that little problem, this solution is valid: the caller can always assign NULL to the list head manually after passing it to DeleteList().
Here is how I would rewrite this with a pointer to pointer:
void DeleteList(element **head) {
element *next, *deleteMe;
deleteMe = *head;
while (deleteMe) {
next = deleteMe->next;
free(deleteMe);
deleteMe = next;
}
*head = NULL;
}
The code from #dasblinkenlight can be made more compact.
void DeleteList(element **head) {
element *deleteMe;
while ((deleteMe = *head)) {
*head = deleteMe->next;
free(deleteMe);
}
}
When calling free, the pointer itself is not changed, so there is no need to pass it by reference.
You don't need to change the value of the head of the list in the caller.
// caller
DeleteList(head);
// head points to an invalid place (the place where the list used to be)
// for convenience sake, reset to NULL
head = NULL;