I am learning data structure, and here is a thing that I am unable to understand...
int end(struct node** p, int data){
/*
This is another layer of indirection.
Why is the second construct necessary?
Well, if I want to modify something allocated outside of my function scope,
I need a pointer to its memory location.
*/
struct node* new = (struct node*)malloc(sizeof(struct node));
struct node* last = *p;
new->data = data;
new->next = NULL;
while(last->next !=NULL){
last = last ->next ;
}
last->next = new;
}
why we are using struct node **p?
can we use struct node *p in place of struct node **p?
the comment which I wrote here is the answer I found here, but still, I am unclear about this here is the full code...
please help me
thank you
Short answer: There is no need for a double-pointer in the posted code.
The normal reason for passing a double-pointer is that you want to be able to change the value of a variable in the callers scope.
Example:
struct node* head = NULL;
end(&head, 42);
// Here the value of head is not NULL any more
// It's value was change by the function end
// Now it points to the first (and only) element of the list
and your function should include a line like:
if (*p == NULL) {*p = new; return 0;}
However, your code doesn't !! Maybe that's really a bug in your code?
Since your code doesn't update *p there is no reason for passing a double-pointer.
BTW: Your function says it will return int but the code has no return statement. That's a bug for sure.
The shown function (according to its name) should create a new node and apend it at the end of the list represented by the pointer to a pointer to a node of that list. (I doubt however, that it actually does, agreeing with comments...)
Since the list might be empty and that pointer to node hence not be pointing to an existing node, it is ncessary to be able to potentially change the pointer to the first elemet of that list away from NULL to then point to the newly created node.
That is only possible if the parameter is not only a copy of the pointer to the first node but instead is a pointer to the pointer to the first node. Because in the second case you can dereference the pointer to pointer and actually modify the pointer to node.
Otherwise the list (if NULL) would always still point to NULL after the function call.
Related
I am trying to understand how the code below for creating a singly linked list works using a double pointer.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct Node {
int data;
struct Node* next;
};
void push(struct Node** headRef, int data) {
struct Node* newNode = (struct Node*)malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
newNode->data = data;
newNode->next = *headRef;
*headRef = newNode;
}
//Function to implement linked list from a given set of keys using local references
struct Node* constructList(int keys[], int n) {
struct Node *head = NULL;
struct Node **lastPtrRef = &head;
int i, j;
for(i = 0; i < n; i++) {
push(lastPtrRef, keys[i]);
lastPtrRef = &((*lastPtrRef)->next); //this line
if((*lastPtrRef) == NULL) {
printf("YES\n");
}
}
return head;
}
int main() {
int keys[] = {1, 2, 3, 4};
int n = sizeof(keys)/sizeof(keys[0]);
//points to the head node of the linked list
struct Node* head = NULL;
head = constructList(keys, n); //construct the linked list
struct Node *temp = head;
while(temp != NULL) { //print the linked list
printf(" %d -> ", temp->data);
temp = temp->next;
}
}
I understand the purpose of using the double pointer in the function push(), it allows you to change what the pointer headRef is pointing to inside the function. However in the function constructList(), I don't understand how the following line works:
lastPtrRef = &((*lastPtrRef)->next);
Initially lastPtrRef would be pointing to head which points to NULL. In the first call to push(), within the for loop in constructList(), the value that head points to is changed (it points to the new node containing the value 1). So after the first call to push(), lastPtrRef will be pointing to head which points to a node with the value of 1. However, afterwards the following line is executed:
lastPtrRef = &((*lastPtrRef)->next);
Whereby lastPtrRef is given the address of whatever is pointed to by the next member of the newly added node. In this case, head->next is NULL.
I am not really sure what the purpose of changing lastPtrRef after the call to push(). If you want to build a linked list, don't you want lastPtrRef to have the address of the pointer which points to the node containing 1, since you want to push the next node (which will containing 2) onto the head of the list (which is 1)?
In the second call to push() in the for loop in constructList, we're passing in lastPtrRef which points to head->next (NULL) and the value 2. In push() the new node is created, containing the value 2, and newNode->next points to head->next which is NULL. headRef in push gets changed so that it points to newNode (which contains 2).
Maybe I'm understanding the code wrong, but it seems that by changing what lastPtrRef points to, the node containing 1 is getting disregarded. I don't see how the linked list is created if we change the address lastPtrRef holds.
I would really appreciate any insights as to how this code works. Thank you.
This uses a technique called forward-chaining, and I believe you already understand that (using a pointer-to-pointer to forward-chain a linked list construction).
This implementation is made confusing by the simple fact that the push function seems like it would be designed to stuff items on the head of a list, but in this example, it's stuffing them on the tail. So how does it do it?
The part that is important to understand is this seemingly trivial little statement in push:
newNode->next = *headRef
That may not seem important, but I assure you it is. The function push, in this case, does grave injustice to what this function really does. In reality it is more of a generic insert. Some fact about that function
It accepts a pointer-to-pointer headRef as an argument, as well as some data to put in to the linked list being managed.
After allocating a new node and saving the data within, it sets the new node's next pointer to whatever value is currently stored in the dereferenced headRef pointer-to-pointer (so.. a pointer) That's what the line I mentioned above accomplishes.
It then stores the new node's address at the same place it just pulled the prior address from; i.e. *headRef
Interestingly, it has no return value (it is void) further making this somewhat confusing. Turns out it doesn't need one.
Upon returning to the caller, at first nothing may seem to have changed. lastPtrRef still points to some pointer (in fact the same pointer as before; it must, since it was passed by value to the function). But now that pointer points to the new node just allocated. Further, that new node's next pointer points to whatever was in *lastPtrRef before the function call (i.e. whatever value was in the pointer pointed to by lastPtrRef before the function call).
That's important. That is what that line of code enforces, That means if you invoke this with lastPtrRef addressing a pointer pointing to NULL (such as head on initial loop entry), that pointer will receive the new node, and the new node's next pointer will be NULL. If you then change the address in lastPtrRef to point to the next pointer of the last-inserted node (which points to NULL; we just covered that), and repeat the process, it will hang another node there, setting that node's next pointer to NULL, etc. With each iteration, lastPtrRef addresses the last-node's next pointer, which is always NULL.
That's how push is being used to construct a forward linked list. One final thought. What would you get for a linked list if you had this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct Node
{
int data;
struct Node* next;
};
void push(struct Node** headRef, int data)
{
struct Node* newNode = (struct Node*)malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
newNode->data = data;
newNode->next = *headRef;
*headRef = newNode;
}
int main()
{
//points to the head node of the linked list
struct Node* head = NULL;
push(&head, 1);
push(&head->next, 2);
push(&head->next, 3);
for (struct Node const *p = head; p; p = p->next)
printf("%p ==> %d\n", p, p->data);
}
This seemingly innocent example amplifies why I said push is more of a generic insert than anything else. This just populates the initial head node.
push(&head, 1);
Then this appends to that node by using the address of the new node's next pointer as the first argument, similar to what your constructList is doing, but without the lastPtrRef variable (we don't need it here):
push(&head->next, 2);
But then this:
push(&head->next, 3);
Hmmm. Same pointer address as the prior call, so what will it do? Hint: remember what that newNode->next = *headRef line does (I droned on about it forever; I hope something stuck).
The output of the program above is this (obviously the actual address values will be different, dependent to your instance and implementation):
0x100705950 ==> 1
0x10073da90 ==> 3
0x100740b90 ==> 2
Hope that helps.
Assuming the relevant header files, functions for Singly Linked List in C are declared.
Is the following definition of Delete() correct?
/* The Structure for SLL
typedef struct SLL
{
int data;
struct SLL *next;
}node;
Function Delete() deletes a node*/
void Delete( node **head)
{
node *temp, *prev;
int key;
temp = *head;
if(temp == NULL)
{
printf("\nThe list is empty");
return;
}
clrscr();
printf("\nEnter the element you want to delete:");
scanf("%d", &key);
temp = search( *head , key);//search()returns the node which has key
if(temp != NULL)
{
prev = get_prev(*head, key);
if(prev != NULL)
{
prev->next = temp->next;
free(temp);
}
else
{
*head = temp->next;
free(temp);
}
printf("\nThe node is deleted");
getch();
}
}
1) What happens if I replace(node ** head) with (node *head)?
2) What happens if I replace void Delete (node **head) with node
*Delete(node *head)?
3) Is there an alternate way to delete a node in C?
Thanks in advance
This isn't a tutorial site, but here goes...
You do know that arguments in C are passed by value? Meaning the value is copied.
For example:
void some_function(int a)
{
// ...
}
When calling the function above, like
int x = 5;
some_function(x);
Then the value in x is copied into the argument a in the function. If the code inside the function assigns to a (e.g. a = 12;) then you only modify the local variable a, the copy. It does not modify the original variable.
Now, if we want the function to modify x, then we must emulate pass by reference, which is done using pointers and the address-of operator:
void some_function(int *a)
{
*a = 12; // Modify where a is pointing
}
Now to call that, we don't create a pointer variable and pass that (though it's possible as well), instead we use the address-of operator & to pass a pointer to the variable:
int x = 5;
some_function(&x); // Pass a pointer to the variable x
The pointer &x will be passed by value (since that's the only way to pass arguments in C), but we don't want to modify the pointer, we want to modify the data where it points.
Now back to your specific function: Your function wants to modify a variable which is a pointer, then how do we emulate pass by reference? By passing a pointer to the pointer.
So if you have
node *head;
// Initialize head, make it point somewhere, etc.
Now since the Delete function needs to modify where head points, we pass a pointer tohead`, a pointer to the pointer:
Delete(&head);
The Delete function of course must accept that type, a pointer to a pointer to node, i.e. node **. It then uses the dereference operator * to get where the pointer is pointing:
*head = temp->next;
1) If you replace node** head with node* head you won't modify the original head pointer. You probably have a head somewhere that marks the beginning of the linked list. When you delete a node, there's a chance that you want to delete head. In that case you need to modify head to point to the next node in the linked list.
*head = temp->next;
free(temp);
This part of your code does exactly that. Here, temp == head. We want head to point to head->next, but if we pass in node* head to the function, the pointer will get modified but the changes will disappear because you're passing the pointer by value. You need to pass in &head which will be of type node ** head if you want the changes to be reflected outside of the function.
2) You will then change the function definition to return a void pointer (which is a placeholder pointer that can be converted to any pointer. Take care to not break any aliasing rules with this. But the problem from (1) remains, although, you could return a modified head, and assign it to the returned value. In that case define the function won't fit well with other cases where the head doesn't need to be modified. So you could return a pointer for head if it's modified or return NULL when it doesnt. It's a slightly messier method of doing things imho, though.
3) Yes, but that depends on the way a linked list is implemented. For the datatype shown here, the basic delete operation is as given.
void addToHead(Node *list, Node added)
{
// Where NodePointer is a typedef of a pointer to a node
(*added).next = (*list);
(*list) = added; //Set list pointer back to first entry
}
For some reason, I'm having issues with this. Why doesn't it work? I thought adding a pointer to a pointer will allow me to change the address of a pointer (as I did with Node * list)
It's hard to say what you're after because I find your question unclear. I'm going to assume that Node contains a Node* next (pointer to Node) because a class or struct cannot contain a full instance of itself and therefor Node.next cannot be a Node.
First, with (*added).next = (*list);. (*list) dereferences a Node* and resolves as a Node, so I'd be surprised if assigning a Node* as a Node would compile.
Second, with (*list) = added;. This one looks more likely to compile, but it will do a shallow copy of added into the space pointed to by list.
No where in your code are you assigning an actual pointer, so I'm confused by what you mean by 'adding a pointer to a pointer'. I also don't know what you mean by 'doesn't work'. You need to explain what behavior you want to see, and what behavior you actually see.
void addToHead(Node * list, Node* added)
{
//Where NodePointer is a typedef of a pointer to a node
(*added).next = list; //you could also do added->next = list
list = added; //Set list pointer back to first entry
}
Below is my simple linked list in C. My question is in "headRef = &newNode;" which causes segmentation fault. Then I tried instead "*headRef = newNode;" which resolves the seg fault problem. Though the two lines of code seem to me to work in the same way, why is one causing seg fault and the other one not?
Thanks in advance.
struct node{
int data;
struct node* next;
};
void Push(struct node** headRef, int data){
struct node* newNode = malloc(sizeof(struct node));
if(!newNode) return;
newNode->data = data;
newNode->next = *headRef;
headRef = &newNode;
return;
}
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of reference semantics via pointers. Here's the core example:
// Call site:
T x;
modify(&x); // take address-of at the call site...
// Callee:
void modify(T * p) // ... so the caller takes a pointer...
{
*p = make_T(); // ... and dereferences it.
}
So: Caller takes address-of, callee dereferences the pointer and modifies the object.
In your code this means that you need to say *headRef = newNode; (in our fundamental example, you have T = struct node *). You have it the wrong way round!
newNode is already an address, you've declared it as a pointer: struct node *newNode. With *headRef = newNode you're assigning that address to a similar pointer, a struct node * to a struct node *.
The confusion is that headRef = &newNode appears to be similarly valid, since the types agree: you're assigning to a struct node ** another struct node **.
But this is wrong for two reasons:
You want to change the value of your function argument headRef, a struct node *. You've passed the address of headRef into the function because C is pass-by-value, so to change a variable you'll need it's address. This variable that you want to change is an address, and so you pass a pointer to a pointer, a struct node **: that additional level of indirection is necessary so that you can change the address within the function, and have that change reflected outide the function. And so within the function you need to dereference the variable to get at what you want to change: in your function, you want to change *headRef, not headRef.
Taking the address of newNode is creating an unnecessary level of indirection. The value that you want to assign, as mentioned above, is the address held by newNode, not the address of newNode.
headRef = &newNode is a local assignment, so the assignment is only valid within the scope of Push function. If changes to the headRef should be visible outside the Push you need to do *headRef = newNode. Furthermore, these two are not equivalent. headRef = &newNode assigns the address of a node pointer to a pointer to node pointer while the *headRef = newNode assigns the address of a node to a pointer to a node using indirection.
You're setting headRef to hold the address of a variable that lives on the stack; as soon as your Push() function returns, the stack is no longer valid and you can count on it getting overwritten. This is a sure recipe for a segfault.
I am having trouble understanding this code. All I really need is to modify the head pointer to point to the first element. So why won't *head work ? Changing the value of *head changes where this pointer points to and that should work, right ? I have read the pass by reference/pass by value, but am finding it hard to understand. Can someone help clarify this ?
Appreciate your help. Thanks.
In C/C++ it’s easier to make mistakes with pointer misuse. Consider this C/C++ code for inserting an element at the front of a list:
bool insertInFront( IntElement *head, int data ){
IntElement *newElem = new IntElement;
if( !newElem ) return false;
newElem->data = data;
head = newElem; // Incorrect!
return true;
}
The preceding code is incorrect because it only updates the local copy of the head pointer. The correct version passes in a pointer to the head pointer:
bool insertInFront( IntElement **head, int data ){
IntElement *newElem = new IntElement;
if( !newElem ) return false;
newElen->data = data;
*head = newElem; // Correctly updates head
return true;
}
You need help understanding the difference right?
Imagine the caller of the function in the first case:
IntElement *head;
int data;
...
insertInFront (head, data);
Now, in this case, the address pointed to by head is placed on the stack and passed in as an argument to insertInFront. When insertInFront does head = newElement; only the argument (on the stack) is modified.
In the second case, the caller would be:
IntElement *head;
int data;
...
insertInFront (&head, data);
In this case, the address of head is placed on the stack and passed in as an argument to insertInFront. When you do *head = newElement, this passed in address is de-referenced to get the address of the original list head, and that is modified.
Its fairly simple when you get your head around what a pointer is. In the first code IntElement *head, head is a pointer to the existing head of the linked list. So the caller is passing in the address of the head element of the list. Changing the value of head in the insert-in-front function doesn't change ANYTHING back at the caller. The value of that address was passed to your function - not what was holding that address back at the caller.
You need to pass your function 'the address of the address of the head' - or IntElement **head. This will allow this function to modify the address held by the caller - i.e. update the linked list to point to the new head.
You don't want to change the value head points to, you want to change the pointer that is stored in head itself, so don't use *head, use a pointer to head itself. Head is of type IntElement *, so the parameter should be a pointer to such a type: IntElement **
Whenever you have a value T x somewhere and you want some other function to modify it, you pass a pointer to x:
T x; // set to some value
modify_me(&x); // will change x
/* ... */
void modify_me(T * x)
{
*x = new_value;
}
Now just apply this mechanic to T = IntElement*. The values that you want to modify are themselves pointers!
(Maybe using a typedef would make things look less confusing: typedef IntElement * NodePtr;.)
Also note that your linked list is broken because you never set the "next" pointer of the new element to point to the old head, and similarly for the "previous" pointer if the list is doubly-linked.