I have a problem with lists and pointers, let me explain.
let's define a list like this:
typedef struct list *LIST;
typedef struct node *link;
struct list{link head; int n;};
struct node{Item val;link next;};
where n is the number of nodes and LIST is a pointer to struct list (I have to do that because I want to make an opaque pointer to the list, in my homework the LIST pointer would go in the .h and the structs would go in the .c but that's not the problem, and I know I should avoid declaring pointer like that).
The Item type is also declared via an opaque pointer, so I have something like this:
typedef struct info *Item;
struct info{char *name;int N};
my problem is that I don't understand how to insert stuff in this lists. (so I would like to add an Item type to the lists, but I can't because Item is a pointer so, for example if a try to do this:
//the lists is already initialized and let's say we want to add 3 nodes
Item x=malloc(sizeof(*x));`
x->name=calloc(10,sizeof(char));
for(int i=0;i<3;i++){
fscanf("%s",x->name);
fscanf("%d",x->N);//this is a random number
ListInsert(L,x);
}
this is what i have in ListInsert():
void ListInsert(LIST L, Item x){
link z,p;
if(L->head==NULL)
L->head=newNode(x,L->head);
else{
for(z=L->head->next, p=L->head;z!=NULL;p=x, z=z->next);//i know a tail would help
p->next=newNode(x,z);
}
}
And this is what I have in newNode():
link newNode(item x,link next){
link z=malloc(sizeof(*z));//should control the allocation was successful I know
z->val=x;
z->next=next;
return z;
}
Whenever I modify the value x, I'm actually modifying what the head and everything points to, that's my problem, what could be a solution? maybe make an array? pointers can sometimes be so hard to understand, for example should I allocate z->val->name?
When you say ...
Whenever I modify the value x, I'm actually modifying what the head and everything points to, that's my problem, what could be a solution?
... I think you're talking about this code:
Item x=malloc(sizeof(*x));`
x->name=calloc(10,sizeof(char));
for(int i=0;i<3;i++){
fscanf("%s",x->name);
fscanf("%d",x->N);//this is a random number
ListInsert(L,x);
}
Indeed, you have allocated only one struct info and assigned x to point to it. You have added that one struct info to your linked list three times, and also modified it several times.
Supposing that your objective is to add three distinct objects to the list, the solution starts with allocating three distinct objects (else where would they come from?). Since each one has a pointer to a dynamically allocated array, you will also want to allocate a separate array for each of those. The easiest way to achieve that would be simply to move the allocations into the loop:
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
Item x = malloc(sizeof(*x));
x->name = calloc(10, sizeof(char));
fscanf("%s", x->name);
fscanf("%d", x->N); //this is a random number
ListInsert(L, x);
}
If you are permitted to modify the structures involved then you could also consider making the name element of struct info an array of suitable length instead of a pointer. That's a little less flexible, but it would mean that you need only one allocation for each item, not two.
Related
I've got a question about array initialization/usage in C for storing structs.
Suppose I have a Person struct:
struct person {
char *name;
int age;
};
and I declare an array of person structs:
struct person people[1000];
My question is, given this array at some future point in the program where n struct persons have been added to people[], what is the correct way to tell where to put the n + 1th struct person?
In something like Java a for loop with if(people[i] == null) could tell you if that index was not yet holding any value, but in C because this is an array of actual values I know I can't check if(people[i] == NULL) since NULL is pointer.
Is there a reliable/correct way to do this in C?
Just use a variable to keep track of number of elements in the array.
int people_count = 0;
struct person people[1000];
void add(struct person p) {
people[people_count] = ...
people_count++;
}
In C, arrays cannot have positions that are empty, meaning that all the elements in an array must exist (in Java, you would essentially have array of pointers, whereas in C you have array of values of the size depending on your struct size).
One common solution would be to add id field to your struct that would indicate whether your struct on a particular position of the array has been initialized or not, i.e.:
struct person {
char *name;
int age;
int id; // meaning: is initialized
};
I am assuming you would like to put something in your array not only at the end (in this case the other answers are better) but also is some positions that haven't been initialized for some reason.
There are multiple solutions:
Just store the value of n and update it when necessary.
Allocate the items of the people array on the HEAP, so the type of the items will be person*. Then you can check for null pointers and it is also more memory friendly, as you do not have to store unnecessary elements. However, for computation performance, I would still not recommend to find the first empty array element with a a linear search, instead store the index of the first free item.
I'm studying linked lists from this lesson.
The writer (and all other coders on every single tutorial) goes through creating node type pointer variables, then allocates memory to them using typecasting and malloc. It seems kinda unnecessary to me (Offourse I know I'm missing something), why can't we implement the same using this?
struct node
{
int data;
struct node *next;
};
int main()
{
struct node head;
struct node second;
struct node third;
head.data = 1;
head.next = &second;
second.data = 2;
second.next = &third;
third.data = 3;
third.next = NULL;
getchar();
return 0;
}
I've created nodes and the next pointers points towards the addresses of the next nodes...
Let's say you create a variable of type node called my_node:
struct node my_node;
You can access its members as my_node.data and my_node.next because it is not a pointer. Your code, however, will only be able to create 3 nodes. Let's say you have a loop that asks the user for a number and stores that number in the linked list, stopping only when the user types in 0. You don't know when the user will type in 0, so you have to have a way of creating variables while the program is running. "Creating a variable" at runtime is called dynamic memory allocation and is done by calling malloc, which always returns a pointer. Don't forget to free the dynamically allocated data after it is no longer needed, to do so call the free function with the pointer returned by malloc. The tutorial you mentioned is just explaining the fundamental concepts of linked lists, in an actual program you're not going to limit yourself to a fixed number of nodes but will instead make the linked list resizable depending on information you only have at runtime (unless a fixed-sized linked list is all you need).
Edit:
"Creating a variable at runtime" was just a highly simplified way of explaining the need for pointers. When you call malloc, it allocates memory on the heap and gives you an address, which you must store in a pointer.
int var = 5;
int * ptr = &var;
In this case, ptr is a variable (it was declared in all its glory) that holds the address of another variable, and so it is called a pointer. Now consider an excerpt from the tutorial you mentioned:
struct node* head = NULL;
head = (struct node*)malloc(sizeof(struct node));
In this case, the variable head will point to data allocated on the heap at runtime.
If you keep allocating nodes on the heap and assigning the returned address to the next member of the last node in the linked list, you will be able to iterate over the linked list simply by writing pointer_to_node = pointer_to_node->next. Example:
struct node * my_node = head; // my_node points to the first node in the linked list
while (true)
{
printf("%d\n", my_node->data); // print the data of the node we're iterating over
my_node = my_node->next; // advance the my_node pointer to the next node
if (my_node->next == NULL) // let's assume that the 'next' member of the last node is always set to NULL
{
printf("%d\n", my_node->data);
break;
}
}
You can, of course, insert an element into any position of the linked list, not just at the end as I mentioned above. Note though that the only node you ever have a name for is head, all the others are accessed through pointers because you can't possibly name all nodes your program will ever have a hold of.
When you declare 'struct node xyz;' in a function, it exists only so long as that function exists. If you add it to a linked list and then exit the function, that object no longer exists, but the linked list still has a reference to it. On the other hand, if you allocate it from the heap and add it to the linked list, it will still exist until it is removed from the linked list and deleted.
This mechanism allows an arbitrary number of nodes to be created at various times throughout your program and inserted into the linked list. The method you show above only allows a fixed number of specific items to be placed in the list for a short duration. You can do that, but it serves little purpose, since you could have just accessed the items directly outside the list.
Of course you can do like that. but how far ? how many nodes are you going to create ? We use linkedlists when we don't know how many entries we need when we create the list. So how can you create nodes ? How much ?
That's why we use malloc() (or new nodes).
But what if you had a file containing an unknown number of entries, and you needed to iterate over them, adding each one to the linked list? Think about how you might do that without malloc.
You would have a loop, and in each iteration you need to create a completely new "instance" of a node, different to all the other nodes. If you just had a bunch of locals, each loop iteration they would still be the same locals.
Your code and approach is correct as long as you know the number of nodes that you need in advance. In many cases, though, the number of nodes depends on user input and is not known in advance.
You definitely have to decide between C and C++, because typecasting and malloc belong in C only. Your C++ linked list code won't be doing typecasting nor using malloc precisely because it's not C code, but C++ code.
Say you are writing an application such as a text editor. The writer of the application has no idea how big a file a user in the future may want to edit.
Making the editor always use a large amount of memory is not helpful in multi-tasking environments, especially one with a large number of users.
With malloc() an editing application can take additional amounts of memory from the heap as required, with different processes using different amounts of memory, without large amounts of memory being wasted.
You can, and you can exploit this technique to create cute code like this, to use the stack as a malloc in a way:
The code below should be safe enough assuming there are no tail optimizations enabled.
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct node_t {
struct node_t *next;
int cur;
int n;
} node_t;
void factorial(node_t *state, void (*then)(node_t *))
{
node_t tmp;
if (state->n <= 1) {
then(state);
} else {
tmp.next = state;
tmp.cur = state->n * state->cur;
tmp.n = state->n - 1;
printf("down: %x %d %d.\n", tmp);
factorial(&tmp, then);
printf("up: %x %d %d.\n", tmp);
}
}
void andThen(node_t *result)
{
while (result != (node_t *)0) {
printf("printing: %x %d %d.\n", *result);
result = result->next;
}
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
node_t initial_state;
node_t *result_state;
initial_state.next = (node_t *)0;
initial_state.n = 6; // factorial of
initial_state.cur = 1; // identity for factorial
factorial(&initial_state, andThen);
}
result:
$ ./fact
down: 28ff34 6 5.
down: 28ff04 30 4.
down: 28fed4 120 3.
down: 28fea4 360 2.
down: 28fe74 720 1.
printing: 28fe74 720 1.
printing: 28fea4 360 2.
printing: 28fed4 120 3.
printing: 28ff04 30 4.
printing: 28ff34 6 5.
printing: 0 1 6.
up: 28fe74 720 1.
up: 28fea4 360 2.
up: 28fed4 120 3.
up: 28ff04 30 4.
up: 28ff34 6 5.
factorial works differently than usual because we can't return the result to caller because the caller will invalidate it with any single stack operation. a single function call will destroy the result, so instead, we must pass it to another function that will have its own frame on top of the current result, which will not invalidate the arbitrary number of stack frames it's sitting on top of that hold our nodes.
I imagine there are many ways for this to break other than tail call optimizations, but it's really elegant when it doesn't, because the links are guaranteed to be fairly cache local, since they are fairly close to each other, and there is no malloc/free needed for arbitrary sized consecutive allocations, since everything is cleaned as soon as returns happen.
Lets think you are making an Application like CHROME web browser, then you wanna create link between tabs created by user at run time which can only possible if you use Dynamic Memory Allocation.
That's why we use new, malloc() etc to apply dynamic memory allocation.
☺:).
I want to create a struct with 2 variables, such as
struct myStruct {
char charVar;
int intVar;
};
and I will name the structs as:
struct myStruct name1;
struct myStruct name2;
etc.
The problem is, I don't know how many variables will be entered, so there must be infinite nameX structures.
So, how can I name these structures with variables?
Thanks.
You should use an array and a pointer.
struct myStruct *p = NULL;
p = malloc(N * sizeof *p); // where N is the number of entries.
int index = 1; /* or any other number - from 0 to N-1*/
p[index].member = x;
Then you can add elements to it by using realloc if you need to add additional entries.
Redefine myStruct as
struct myStruct {
char charVar;
int intVar;
struct myStruct *next;
};
Keep track of the last structure you have as well as the start of the list. When addding new elements, append them to the end of your linked list.
/* To initialize the list */
struct myStruct *start, *end;
start = malloc(sizeof(struct myStruct));
start->next = NULL;
end = start;
/* To add a new structure at the end */
end->next = malloc(sizeof(struct myStruct));
end = end->next;
end->next = NULL;
This example does not do any error checking. Here is how you would step along the list to print all the values in it:
struct myStruct *ptr;
for(ptr = start; ptr != NULL; ptr = ptr->next)
printf("%d %s\n", ptr->intVar, ptr->charVar);
You not have to have a distinct name for each structure in a linked list (or any other kind of list, in general). You can assign any of the unnamed structures to the pointer ptr as you use them.
So, how can I name these structures with variables?
I think every beginner starts out wanting to name everything. It's not surprising -- you learn about using variables to store data, so it seems natural that you'd always use variables. The answer, however, is that you don't always use variables for storing data. Very often, you store data in structures or objects that are created dynamically. It may help to read about dynamic allocation. The idea is that when you have a new piece of data to store, you ask for a piece of memory (using a library call like malloc or calloc). You refer to that piece of memory by its address, i.e. a pointer.
There are a number of ways to keep track of all the pieces of memory that you've obtained, and each one constitutes a data structure. For example, you could keep a number of pieces of data in a contiguous block of memory -- that's an array. See Devolus's answer for an example. Or you could have lots of little pieces of memory, with each one containing the address (again, a pointer) of the next one; that's a linked list. Mad Physicist's answer is a fine example of a linked list.
Each data structure has its own advantages and disadvantages -- for example, arrays allow fast access but are slow for inserting and deleting, while linked lists are relatively slow for access but are fast for inserting and deleting. Choosing the right data structure for the job at hand is an important part of programming.
It usually takes a little while to get comfortable with pointers, but it's well worth the effort as they open up a lot of possibilities for storing and manipulating data in your program. Enjoy the ride.
I have a function that adds one item to a list that I created. If it's the first time and the list points to NULL, it allocates the list and completes it, returning the address. If it's not the first time, it adds another item and again returns the first item (by now I could disregard this return). The list and the function WORKS fine, here is the prototype:
typedef struct structTAppConsoleList {
char *text;
void (*cbFunction)(int);
int number; // This is the item number
struct structTAppConsoleList *previous;
struct structTAppConsoleList *next;
} TList;
TList *AppConsoleListAddItem(TList *p_list, const char *p_string, void (*p_funcPtr)(int));
So, somewhere in my code I have to create a lot of them and I'm trying to make it as the code below shows. Thing is, I can't make it work... I want to create something to group the lists I want to create and then use it in the function. The code below is an idea of what I'm trying to do. Consider only the part where I try to allocate the 3 lists, the rest is not important for this example.
TList *list1;
TList *list2;
TList *list3;
int main(void)
{
int i,j;
TList **groupMyLists;
TList *temp;
groupMyLists=malloc(sizeof(TList)*3);
*groupMyLists =(TList*)&list1;
*(groupMyLists+1)=(TList*)&list2;
*(groupMyLists+2)=(TList*)&list3;
for(j=0;j<3;j++) {
temp=NULL;
for(i=0;i<10;i++) {
temp=AppConsoleListAddItem(temp,"some text",someFunc);
}
**groupMyLists=temp; // my make won't let me do this
groupMyLists++;
}
}
I'm pretty sure that this would do it, but I can't compile it.
In my head, (*groupMyLists) would be the same as (&list1), (&list2), (&list3), the same way that (**groupMyLists) would be the same as (list1), (list2) and (list3). So why I can't do (**groupMyLists=temp)? Anyone?
I hope I made myself clear!! I's not easy to explain this madness I'm trying to do...
Change this line, you are using the wrong indirection.
*groupMyLists=temp;
In addition to the above two answers about the incorrect indirection of **groupMyLists you probably also want to assign the list1,list2,list3 pointers correct pointer values instead of writing garbage values into the allocated memory in groupMyLists i.e.
TList * groupMyList = malloc(sizeof(TList)*3);
list1 = &groupMyList[0];
list2 = &groupMyList[1];
list3 = &groupMyList[2];
but, this does not really match the rest of your code as it seems that AppConsoleAddListItem allocates the temp list so in that case your malloc would be incorrect as it should allocate the space for the pointers instead of space for the lists as in:
TList ** groupMyList = (TList **)malloc(sizeof(TList *)*3);
TList * temp;
if (!groupMyList) {
/* Print allocation error warning or handle in some proper fashion */
exit(1);
}
for(j=0;j<3;j++) {
temp=NULL;
for(i=0;i<10;i++) {
temp=AppConsoleListAddItem(temp,"some text",someFunc);
}
groupMyLists[j]=temp; // Here you now assign the pointer in temp to the memory for // pointers that you allocated above
}
list1 = groupMyList[0]; // Here we need to assign the list1,2,3 after the AppConsole calls
list2 = groupMyList[1]; // as these calls will changes the pointer addresses written into
list3 = groupMyList[2]; // groupMyList
Although I can not be sure exactly what you are trying to do there are several inconsistencies of pointers and indirections in your original code and the above two examples can hopefully be of some guidance
This would do the job:
**groupMyLists = *temp;
of copying one struct referenced by temp to another struct referenced by *groupMyLists.
But only if *groupMyLists would reference any valid memory, which is does not do - at least not from the source you posted.
I would like to know if anyone has a suggestion for keeping track of and sorting some pointers. Each pointer points to a struct (struct1_t) which contains some elements.
I also need to be able to (very quickly) find the struct1_t with the most amount of elements to add new ones to (full ones are removed from the list), but struct1_t s may change the number of elements they have (increment fullest or decrement random only), so I need to be able to update this within this storage quickly. All new struct1_t have 0 elements when added, or (MAX - 1) elements.
However, the challenge here is that I don't know a way to use a linked list, because unfortunately, I'm not able to use malloc. I can only allocate and free entire pages (or multiples) at once.
I think you can do like this, define a struct
struct node{
int data;
struct node *prev;
struct node *next;
};
If you can't use malloc, you can declare a global array
struct node elements[ENOUGH_SPACE];
then use each element of this array like the malloc's result, like
struct node *p = &elements[i];
p->next = ...
p->prev = ...