I am trying to accomplish a function that grows a linked list while also putting them in ascending order at the same time, I have been stuck for a while and gained little progress. I believe my insertLLInOrder is correct it's just the createlinkedList that is messing it up.
Sometimes my output comes out fully and other times it only prints out some of the list.
Anything helps!
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct node {
int data;
struct node *next;
} node;
node *createlinkedList(int num);
node *insertLLInOrder(node * h, node * n);
void display(node * head);
int randomVal(int min, int max);
int
main()
{
int usernum = 0;
node *HEAD = NULL;
printf("How many Nodes do you want? ");
scanf("%d", &usernum);
srand(time(0));
HEAD = createlinkedList(usernum);
display(HEAD);
return 0;
}
node *
createlinkedList(int num)
{
int i;
int n = num;
node *head = NULL;
node *newNode;
node *temp;
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
newNode = (node *) malloc(sizeof(node));
newNode->next = NULL;
newNode->data = randomVal(1, 9);
temp = insertLLInOrder(head, newNode);
head = temp;
}
return head;
}
int
randomVal(int min, int max)
{
return min + (rand() % (max - min)) + 1;
}
node *
insertLLInOrder(node * h, node * n)
{
//h is the head pointer, n is the pointer to new node
node *ptr = h;
node *previous = NULL;
while ((ptr != NULL) && (ptr->data < n->data)) {
previous = ptr; // remember previous node
ptr = ptr->next; // check for the next node
}
if (previous == NULL) {
//h is an empty list initially
n->next = NULL;
return n; // return the pointer of the new node
}
else {
//if there are nodes in the linked list
// previous will point to the node that has largest value, but smaller than new node
n->next = previous->next; // insert new node between previous, and previous->next
previous->next = n;
return h; // return old head pointer
}
}
void
display(node * head)
{
node *p = head;
while (p != NULL) {
printf("%d, ", p->data);
p = p->next;
}
}
Obviously in your insertLLInOrder() if the first while loop gives previous == NULL it means that you must insert at list head, which is not what your are doing.
Just change n->next = NULL; to n->next = h; and it should improve behavior.
Taking a step back and perspective
This is a very simple error, but it is made harder to spot because of the way you wrote your code.
The bug in itself is not very interesting, but it can help to get a higher perspective on why it happened and how to avoid such bugs.
And, no, running a debugger is not very helpful for such cases!
Having to run a debugger happens sometimes, but it merely means that you have lost the control of your program. Like having a parachute can be a safety mesure for a pilot, but if he has to use it, it also means that the pilot lost control and his plane is crashing.
Do you know the story of the Three Ninjas Programmers?
The three Ninjas
The chief of ninjas orders three Ninja to show him their training level. There is a Noob, a Beginner and a Senior. He asks them to reach a small cabin, on the other side of a field, take some object inside and come back.
The first Ninja is a noob, he runs and jumps across the field with all his speed but soon enough he walks on a (plaster) mine. He goes back at the start line and confesses his failure, which is obvious because his previously black shirt is now covered by white plaster.
The second Ninja shows some practice. You can tell he failed like the Noob on a previous try and that now he is wary. He is very slow and very careful. He sneaks very slowly across the field watching closely everywhere at each step. He gets quite close to the cabin, and everybody believes he will succeed, but eventually, he is also blown by a mine at the last second. He also goes back disappointed to the starting point, but he somehow believes it will be hard for the third Ninja to do any better.
The third Ninja is a Senior. He walks calmly across the field in a straight line, enter the cabin, and goes back without any visible trouble, still merely walking across the field.
When he gets back to the starting point the other two Ninjas are stunned and ask him eagerly:
- How did you avoid the mines?
- Obviously, I didn't put any mines on my path in the first place; why did you put mines in yours?
Back to the code
So, what could be done differently when writing such a program?
First using random values in code is a bad idea. The consequence is that the code behavior can't be repeated from one run to the next one.
It is also important that the code clearly separate user inputs (data) and code manipulating that data.
In that case, it means that the createLinkedList() function should probably have another signature. Probably something like node *createlinkedList(int num, int data[]) where the data[] array will contains values to sort. It is still possible to fill input data with random values if it is what we want.
That way, we can easily create tests set and unit tests, like in code below:
Home made unit tests suite
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct node {
int data;
struct node *next;
} node;
node *createlinkedList(int num, int * data);
node *insertLLInOrder(node * h, node * n);
/* No need to have a test framework to write unit tests */
/* Check_LL is some helper function comparing a linked list with test data from an array */
int check_LL(node * head, int num, int * data)
{
node *p = head;
int n = 0;
for (; n < num ; n++){
if (!p){return 0;}
if (p->data != data[n]){return 0;}
p = p->next;
}
return p == NULL;
}
void test_single_node()
{
printf("Running Test %s: ", __FUNCTION__);
int input_data[1] = {1};
int expected[1] = {1};
node * HEAD = createlinkedList(1, input_data);
printf("%s\n", check_LL(HEAD, 1, expected)?"PASSED":"FAILED");
}
void test_insert_after()
{
printf("Running Test %s: ", __FUNCTION__);
int input_data[2] = {1, 2};
int expected[2] = {1, 2};
node * HEAD = createlinkedList(2, input_data);
printf("%s\n", check_LL(HEAD, 2, expected)?"PASSED":"FAILED");
}
void test_insert_before()
{
printf("Running Test %s: ", __FUNCTION__);
int input_data[2] = {2, 1};
int expected[2] = {1, 2};
node * HEAD = createlinkedList(2, input_data);
printf("%s\n", check_LL(HEAD, 2, expected)?"PASSED":"FAILED");
}
/* We could leave test code in program and have a --test command line option to call the code */
int
main()
{
test_single_node();
test_insert_after();
test_insert_before();
}
node *
createlinkedList(int num, int * data)
{
int i;
node *head = NULL;
for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
node * newNode = (node *) malloc(sizeof(node));
newNode->next = NULL;
newNode->data = data[i];
head = insertLLInOrder(head, newNode);
}
return head;
}
node *
insertLLInOrder(node * h, node * n)
{
//h is the head pointer, n is the pointer to new node
node *ptr = h;
node *previous = NULL;
while ((ptr != NULL) && (ptr->data < n->data)) {
previous = ptr; // remember previous node
ptr = ptr->next; // check for the next node
}
if (previous == NULL) {
//h is an empty list initially
n->next = NULL;
return n; // return the pointer of the new node
}
else {
//if there are nodes in the linked list
// previous will point to the node that has largest value, but smaller than new node
n->next = previous->next; // insert new node between previous, and previous->next
previous->next = n;
return h; // return old head pointer
}
}
As you can see the third test spot the bug.
Of course, you could use some available third party Unit Test library, but the most important point is not the test library, but to write the tests.
Another point is that really you should interleave writing tests and writing implementation code.
This typically helps for writing good code and is what people call TDD. But my answer is probably already long enough, so I won't elaborate here on TDD.
Related
I'm writing a simple C program to manage a linked list defined as follow:
typedef struct node {
int value;
struct node *next;
} *List;
I reviewed the code and it seems okay but when printing results something is not working well.
My main, with problems on comments:
int main(void) {
List n = list_create(1);
insert(n, 2);
insert(n, 3);
insert(n, 5);
insert(n, 4);
//something here does not work properly. It produces the following output:
//Value: 1
//Value: 2
//Value: 3
//Value: 4
//where is value 5?
print_list(n);
delete(n, 3);
print_list(n);
return 0;
}
I don't know where am I destroying list structure. These are my functions, to debug, if you are too kind.
List list_create(int value) {
List new = malloc(sizeof(struct node));
new->value = value;
new->next = NULL;
return new;
}
List new_node(int value, List next_node) {
List new = malloc(sizeof(struct node));
new->value = value;
new->next = next_node;
return new;
}
void print_list(List l) {
List *aux;
for (aux = &l; (*aux) != NULL; aux = &((*aux)->next))
printf("Valor: %d\n", (*aux)->value);
}
void insert(List l, int value) {
List *p;
for (p = &l; (*p) != NULL; p = &((*p)->next))
if ((*p)->value > value) {
List tmp = *p;
List new = new_node(value, tmp);
*p = new;
break;
}
*p = new_node(value, NULL);
}
void delete(List l, int value) {
List *p;
for (p = &l; (*p) != NULL; p = &((*p)->next))
if ((*p)->value == value) {
List del = (*p);
(*p) = ((*p)->next);
free(del);
break;
}
}
This code has (at least) two bugs:
The line
if ((*p)->value > value){
means that if you start the list with 1 as the first value and then try to insert 2,3,4..., the body of the 'if' statement never runs, so nothing ever gets inserted.
If you insert a value below the starting value, you have to modify the list pointer itself. However, as #EOF alluded, you are trying to modify a value passed to a function by taking its address. This won't work. &l does not give you the address of the List you passed, it gives you the address of the local copy on insert()'s stack. You are better off modifying the values of first element of the list 'in place'. If you really want to make the List parameter mutable, you'll need to pass it as a List *, and call the function with the address of the list (e.g. insert(&n,2); ) Your delete() function suffers from the same problem - try deleting the first element of the list.
Try this for your insert function:
void insert(List l, int value)
{
List p;
// Find end of list or highest item less than value
for(p = l; p->next != NULL && p->next->value < value; p = p->next);
if (p->value >= value) {
// Over-write p with new value, and insert p as a new one after.
// This saves having to modify l itself.
int tmpval = p->value;
p->value = value;
p->next = new_node(tmpval, p->next);
} else {
// Insert new item after p
p->next = new_node(value, p->next);
}
}
A comment: it is possible the way you are using pointers is not helping the debugging process.
For example, your print_list() could be re-written like this:
void print_list(List l){
List aux;
for(aux = l; aux != NULL; aux = aux->next)
printf("Valor: %d\n", aux->value);
}
and still behave the same. It is generally good practice not to 'hide' the pointer-like nature of a pointer by including a '*' in the typedef.
For example, if you define your list like this:
typedef struct node{
int value;
struct node *next;
} List
And pass it to functions like this:
my_func(List *l, ...)
then it'll make some of these issues more apparent. Hope this helps.
There are many problems in your code:
Hiding pointers behind typedefs is a bad idea, it leads to confusion for both the programmer and the reader.
You must decide whether the initial node is a dummy node or if the empty list is simply a NULL pointer. The latter is much simpler to handle but you must pass the address of the head node to insert and delete so they can change the head node.
printlist does not need an indirect pointer, especially starting from the address of the pointer passed as an argument. Simplify by using the Node pointer directly.
in insert you correctly insert the new node before the next higher node but you should then return from the function. Instead, you break out of the switch and the code for appending is executed, replacing the inserted node with a new node with the same value and a NULL next pointer. This is the reason 5 gets removed and lost when you insert 4. Furthermore, you should pass the address of the head node so a node can be inserted before the first.
delete starts from the address of the argument. It cannot delete the head node because the pointer in the caller space does not get updated. You should pass the address of the head node.
You should avoid using C++ keywords such as new and delete in C code: while not illegal, it confuses readers used to C++, confuses the syntax highlighter and prevents compilation by C++ compilers.
Here is a simplified and corrected version:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct Node {
int value;
struct Node *next;
} Node;
Node *new_node(int value, Node *next_node) {
Node *node = malloc(sizeof(*node));
if (node != NULL) {
node->value = value;
node->next = next_node;
}
return node;
}
void print_list(Node *list) {
for (; list != NULL; list = list->next)
printf("Valor: %d\n", list->value);
}
void insert_node(Node **p, int value) {
while ((*p) != NULL && (*p)->value < value)
p = &(*p)->next;
*p = new_node(value, *p);
}
void delete_node(Node **p, int value) {
while (*p != NULL) {
if ((*p)->value == value) {
Node *found = *p;
*p = (*p)->next;
free(found);
// return unless delete() is supposed to remove all occurrences
return;
} else {
p = &(*p)->next;
}
}
}
int main(void) {
Node *n = NULL;
insert_node(&n, 2);
insert_node(&n, 3);
insert_node(&n, 5);
insert_node(&n, 4);
insert_node(&n, 1);
print_list(n);
delete_node(&n, 3);
print_list(n);
delete_node(&n, 1);
print_list(n);
return 0;
}
I am trying basic creation of linked list using C. I have written the following code which is working up until first node but fails eventually on second one. I think the issue is where I am trying to display the node values in list separated by arrow(->). I think my logic is right but please correct me. Thanks in advance
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <malloc.h>
struct node
{
int number;
struct node *next;
};
typedef struct node NODE;
NODE *node1, *node2, *start, *save;
int main()
{
node1 = (NODE *)malloc(sizeof(NODE));
int i = 0;
start = NULL;
for(i = 0; i < 3; i++)
{
int inf;
printf("Enter node value:");
scanf("%d", &inf);
node1->number = inf;
node1->next = NULL;
if(start == NULL)
{
start = node1;
save = node1;
}
else
{
// save=start;
// start=node1;
// node1->next=save;
node1->next = start;
start = node1;
}
while(node1 != NULL)
{
printf("%d ->",node1->number);
node1 = node1->next;
}
}
return 0;
}
The issues are
How you're allocating your nodes for insertion (i.e. save for one, you're not).
How they're placed in the list once you fix the above.
Don't cast malloc in C programs (read here for why).
Fail to check the success of your scanf invoke.
Fail to check the success of your malloc invoke
Before you get discouraged, things you did correctly:
Did not mask a node pointer in a typedef
Properly included a MCVE for review
Prospected the things you may be doing wrong.
A very simple example of iterating three values into a linked list would look something like this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct node
{
int number;
struct node *next;
};
typedef struct node NODE;
int main()
{
NODE *head = NULL, *p;
int i = 0;
for(i = 0; i < 3; i++)
{
int inf;
printf("Enter node value:");
if (scanf("%d", &inf) == 1)
{
p = malloc(sizeof *p);
if (p != NULL)
{
p->number = inf;
p->next = head;
head = p;
}
else
{
perror("Failed to allocate new node");
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
}
else
{
// failed to read data. break
break;
}
// report current linked list
printf("%d", p->number);
for (p=p->next; p; p = p->next)
printf(" -> %d", p->number);
fputc('\n', stdout);
}
// cleanup the linked list
while (head)
{
p = head;
head = head->next;
free(p);
}
head = NULL;
return 0;
}
Input
The values 1 2 3 are input upon being prompted:
Output
Enter node value:1
1
Enter node value:2
2 -> 1
Enter node value:3
3 -> 2 -> 1
Best of luck.
You should use malloc() inside for loop.
Since it is outside, same memory is being used.
As said by Vamsi, you should use malloc to put the nodes on the heap. You also generally shouldn't cast the output of malloc, it isn't needed. And then you could play around with making a doubly-linked list, where you also have a prev pointer inside your struct.
I'm trying to implement a hash table in C, and almost have it. I'm implementing collision resolution via chaining using a linked list in each array slot, and I'd like to be able to chain inside a function call.
Now, the problem is that in order for the modifications to be permanent I believe that I need an additional level of indirection. This is a problem in that when I try to traverse the list the previous element is overwritten by the next (see my comment inside the insert() function). I've tried to pass this array with an additional level of indirection specified a few different ways but I get compiler warnings and seg faults.
This may seem simple to some of you, but it's had me scratching my head for quite some time now, and this scenario (passing array of pointers for modification) is treated nowhere in my text and I can't seem to find this exact question asked (although it may be in a form I don't recognize). I'm not necessarily looking for a 'quick fix' to my code, but I want to understand what is the best practice to accomplish what I'm looking to do.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <time.h>
//#include "list.c"
struct node{
int key;
struct node* next;
};
void createTable(struct node *table[], int numEls, int numSlots);
int hash(int key, int numSlots);
void insert(struct node *table[], int key, int slot, int numSlots);
void display(struct node *table[], int numEls);
int main(void){
srand(time(NULL));
int numEls, numSlots;
printf("Please enter the desired number of slots in the hash table: ");
scanf("%d", &numSlots);
struct node *table[numSlots];
printf("\nPlease enter the desired number of elements: ");
scanf("%d", &numEls);
printf("\nYour load factor will be %f", (float)numEls/numSlots);
createTable(table, numEls, numSlots);
}
void createTable(struct node *table[], int numEls, int numSlots){
for(int i = 0; i < numSlots; i++)
table[i] = NULL;
for(int j = 0; j < numEls; j++){
for(int k = 0; k < 99999999; k++){}//give the rand function time
int el = rand()%100;
insert(table, el, hash(rand()%100, numSlots), numSlots);
}
display(table, numSlots);
}
int hash(int key, int numSlots){
return((int)(pow(key, 2.819)) % numSlots);
}
void insert(struct node *table[], int key_, int slot, int numSlots){
printf("\nInserting %d into slot %d", key_, slot);
fflush(stdout);
struct node* new = malloc(sizeof(struct node));
(new)->key = key_;
(new)->next = NULL;
struct node** temp = &(table[slot]);
if((*temp) == NULL){
printf(" (*temp) == NULL");
(*temp) = new;
}
else{
printf(" %d", (*temp)->key);
while((*temp)->next != NULL){
printf(" %d", (*temp)->next->key);
(*temp) = (*temp)->next; //head is overwritten with head->next
}
(*temp)->next = new;
printf(" %d", (*temp)->next->key);
}
}
void display(struct node *table[], int numSlots){
for(int i = 0; i < numSlots; i++){
printf("\nSlot %d:", i);
struct node* temp = table[i];
while(temp != NULL){
printf(" %d", temp->key);
temp = temp->next;
}
}
}
In the line with the comment, you are overwriting the pointer to the head (inside the outermost array) with the next element in the linked list, which was probably not your intent.
The correction is to walk down the list of pointers until you found the last pointer, without modifying the main data structure during the walk.
Here is a corrected version of insert().
void insert(struct node *table[], int key_, int slot, int numSlots){
printf("\nInserting %d into slot %d", key_, slot);
fflush(stdout);
struct node* new = malloc(sizeof(struct node));
new->key = key_;
new->next = NULL;
// Here we make a copy of the pointer to the head node in the linked list.
// This way, we never overwrite the original copy which lives in the array itself.
struct node* head = table[slot];
if(head == NULL){
printf(" head == NULL");
table[slot] = new;
}
else{
while(head->next != NULL) {
head = head->next; //head is overwritten with head->next
}
head->next = new;
}
}
This isn't an answer but is too big for a comment... can you explain what this code is meant to be doing?
while((*temp)->next != NULL)
{
printf(" %d", (*temp)->next->key);
(*temp) = (*temp)->next; //head is overwritten with head->next
}
(*temp)->next = new;
I would expect that you want to append the new node at the end of the linked list of existing nodes in this slot. But this code actually updates the head to point to the last node in the list , just like your comment says (leaking memory - the earlier nodes in the list are now unreachable). Then it makes the last node (which is now the only node in the list) point to new.
So your "list" only ever has length 1 or 2, and it leaks memory each time you try to put a third entry in.
It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with your passing of table (which is a list of heads of linked lists) but the problem is that the code that maintains the list for which those are heads, is not right.
I know this may sound a lot naive, but can someone please explain me how can i implement graphs in C language. I have read the theory, but I am not able to get off the blocks with graph programming.
I would really appreciate if someone could explain how would to create a graph using adjacency lists and adjacency matrix and how would you perform breadth first search and depth first search in C code with some explanations
And before anything, I would like to tell you that this is not a homework. I really want to learn graphs but can't afford a tutor.
I assume that here graph is a collection of vertex and edges. For that you would need an array of pointer to structures. This is adjacency list representation of graph. These structures would having at least an value, which is node number and pointer to another structure. While inserting a new node to graph just go to appropriate index of array and push the node at beginning. This is O(1) time for insertion. My implementation might help you in understanding how it really works. If you are having good skills at C this wouldn't take much longer to understand the code.
// Graph implementation by adjacency list
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#define MAX_SIZE 1000
typedef struct node{
int number;
struct node * next;
} Node;
// U is starting node, V is ending node
void addNode (Node *G[], int U, int V, int is_directed)
{
Node * newnode = (Node *)malloc(sizeof(Node));
newnode->number = V;
newnode->next = G[U];
G[U] = newnode;
// 0 for directed, 1 for undirected
if (is_directed)
{
Node * newnode = (Node *)malloc(sizeof(Node));
newnode->number = U;
newnode->next = G[V];
G[V] = newnode;
}
}
void printgraph(Node *G[], int num_nodes)
{
int I;
for (I=0; I<=num_nodes; I++)
{
Node *dum = G[I];
printf("%d : ",I);
while (dum != NULL)
{
printf("%d, ",dum->number);
dum =dum->next;
}
printf("\n");
}
}
void dfs (Node *G[], int num_nodes, int start_node)
{
int stack[MAX_SIZE];
int color[num_nodes+1];
memset (color, 0, sizeof(color));
int top = -1;
stack[top+1] = start_node;
top++;
while (top != -1)
{
int current = stack[top];
printf("%d ",current);
top--;
Node *tmp = G[current];
while (tmp != NULL)
{
if (color[tmp->number] == 0)
{
stack[top+1] = tmp->number;
top++;
color[tmp->number] = 1;
}
tmp = tmp->next;
}
}
}
void bfs (Node *G[], int num_nodes, int start_node)
{
int queue[MAX_SIZE];
int color[num_nodes+1];
memset (color, 0, sizeof (color));
int front=-1, rear=-1;
queue[rear+1] = start_node;
rear++;printf("\n\n");
while (front != rear)
{
front++;
int current = queue[front];
printf("%d ",current);
Node *tmp = G[current];
while (tmp != NULL)
{
if (color[tmp->number] == 0)
{
queue[rear+1] = tmp->number;
rear++;
color[tmp->number] = 1;
}
tmp = tmp->next;
}
}
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int num_nodes;
// For Demo take num_nodes = 4
scanf("%d",&num_nodes);
Node *G[num_nodes+1];
int I;
for (I=0; I<num_nodes+1 ;I++ )
G[I] = NULL;
addNode (G, 0, 2, 0);
addNode (G, 0, 1, 0);
addNode (G, 1, 3, 0);
addNode (G, 2, 4, 0);
addNode (G, 2, 1, 0);
printgraph( G, num_nodes);
printf("DFS on graph\n");
dfs(G, num_nodes, 0);
printf("\n\nBFS on graph\n");
bfs(G, num_nodes, 0);
return 0;
}
Well, a real naive and basic answer would be that graph can be represented in C using data structures that contain their pointers to other such data structures. Graphs are really just doubly linked lists that can have multiple links from a single node. If you haven't digested linked lists and doubly linked lists, that'd be a good place to start.
So let's say you have a adjacency list, {a,b},{b,c},{d},{b,e}. First off, you parse that and make a list of all your unique items. (A regular linked list, array, whatever, it's just a temporary structure to help you. You could bypass that, do it on the fly, and probably reap a speedup, but this is simple.) Walking through that list, you generate a node for each item. For each node, you go through the adjacency list again and create an edge when it sees itself. This is a pointer inside the node pointing to another node.
In the end you have a regular list of all you nodes, so you don't lose that lone 'd' node hanging out by itself. You also have a graph of all your nodes so you know their relationship to each other.
Search
Searching across graphs is a pretty basic idea. Start in a node, compare, move to one of it's neighbors and do it again. There are a lot of pitfalls though. Like getting into an endless loop and knowing when to stop.
You'll have to ask more specific questions if you want a better explanation than what you can find online already.
Why are the split lists always empty in this program? (It is derived from the code on the Wikipedia page on Linked Lists.)
/*
Example program from wikipedia linked list article
Modified to find nth node and to split the list
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct ns
{
int data;
struct ns *next; /* pointer to next element in list */
} node;
node *list_add(node **p, int i)
{
node *n = (node *)malloc(sizeof(node));
if (n == NULL)
return NULL;
n->next = *p; //* the previous element (*p) now becomes the "next" element */
*p = n; //* add new empty element to the front (head) of the list */
n->data = i;
return *p;
}
void list_print(node *n)
{
int i=0;
if (n == NULL)
{
printf("list is empty\n");
}
while (n != NULL)
{
printf("Value at node #%d = %d\n", i, n->data);
n = n->next;
i++;
}
}
node *list_nth(node *head, int index) {
node *current = head;
node *temp=NULL;
int count = 0; // the index of the node we're currently looking at
while (current != NULL) {
if (count == index)
temp = current;
count++;
current = current->next;
}
return temp;
}
/*
This function is to split a linked list:
Return a list with nodes starting from index 'int ind' and
step the index by 'int step' until the end of list.
*/
node *list_split(node *head, int ind, int step) {
node *current = head;
node *temp=NULL;
int count = ind; // the index of the node we're currently looking at
temp = list_nth(current, ind);
while (current != NULL) {
count = count+step;
temp->next = list_nth(head, count);
current = current->next;
}
return temp; /* return the final stepped list */
}
int main(void)
{
node *n = NULL, *list1=NULL, *list2=NULL, *list3=NULL, *list4=NULL;
int i;
/* List with 30 nodes */
for(i=0;i<=30;i++){
list_add(&n, i);
}
list_print(n);
/* Get 1th, 5th, 9th, 13th, 18th ... nodes of n etc */
list1 = list_split(n, 1, 4);
list_print(list1);
list2 = list_split(n, 2, 4); /* 2, 6, 10, 14 etc */
list_print(list2);
list3 = list_split(n, 3, 4); /* 3, 7, 11, 15 etc */
list_print(list3);
list3 = list_split(n, 4, 4); /* 4, 8, 12, 16 etc */
list_print(list4);
getch();
return 0;
}
temp = list_nth(current, ind);
while (current != NULL) {
count = count+step;
temp->next = list_nth(head, count);
current = current->next;
}
You are finding the correct item to begin the split at, but look at what happens to temp from then on ... you only ever assign to temp->next.
You need to keep track of both the head of your split list and the tail where you are inserting new items.
The program, actually, has more than one problem.
Indexes are not a native way to address linked list content. Normally, pointers to nodes or iterators (which are disguised pointers to nodes) are used. With indexes, accessing a node has linear complexity (O(n)) instead of constant O(1).
Note that list_nth returns a pointer to a "live" node within a list, not a copy. By assigning to temp->next in list_split, you are rewiring the original list instead of creating a new one (but maybe it's intentional?)
Within list_split, temp is never advanced, so the loop just keeps attaching nodes to the head instead of to the tail.
Due to use of list_nth for finding nodes by iterating through the whole list from the beginning, list_split has quadratic time (O(n**2)) instead of linear time. It's better to rewrite the function to iterate through the list once and copy (or re-attach) required nodes as it passes them, instead of calling list_nth. Or, you can write current = list_nth(current, step).
[EDIT] Forgot to mention. Since you are rewiring the original list, writing list_nth(head, count) is incorrect: it will be travelling the "short-cirquited" list, not the unmodified one.
I also notice that it looks like you are skipping the first record in the list when you are calculating list_nth. Remember is C we normally start counting at zero.
Draw out a Linked List diagram and follow your logic:
[0]->[1]->[2]->[3]->[4]->[5]->[6]->[7]->[8]->[9]->...->[10]->[NULL]
Your description of what list_split is supposed to return is pretty clear, but it's not clear what is supposed to happen, if anything, to the original list. Assuming it's not supposed to change:
node *list_split(node *head, int ind, int step) {
node *current = head;
node *newlist=NULL;
node **end = &newlist;
node *temp = list_nth(current, ind);
while (temp != NULL) {
*end = (node *)malloc(sizeof(node));
if (*end == NULL) return NULL;
(*end)->data = temp->data;
end = &((*end)->next);
temp = list_nth(temp, step);
}
return newlist; /* return the final stepped list */
}
(You probably want to factor a list_insert routine out of that that inserts a new
node at a given location. list_add isn't very useful since it always adds to the
beginning of the list.)