Sorting doubly linked list alphabetical - c

The task is to sort a list in alphabetical order. That is to be done by changing the pointer variables and not just switching the content of the nodes.
I first wanted to implemend a swap function. that function shall swap 2 nodes. After that I wanted to implement a sorting algorithm. My problem is, that the swaping function does not really work as it should and the algorithm doesnt either (ofc, since the swapping function doesnt even work).
struct student {
char Vorname[51];
char Nachname[51];
int MatNr;
char Adresse[51];
int Kurse;
struct student *next;
struct student *previous;
};
struct student *first = NULL;
struct student *last = NULL;
void swap(struct student *pointer) {
struct student *pointer1, *pointer3, *pointer4;
pointer1 = pointer->previous;
pointer3 = pointer->next;
pointer4 = pointer->next->next;
pointer4->previous = pointer;
pointer->next = pointer4;
pointer1->next = pointer3;
pointer3->previous = pointer1;
pointer->previous = pointer3;
pointer3->next = pointer;
}
This is the not finished sort function. I didnt implement it correctly yet, since the swap function took my attention first.
void sort(void) {
struct student *pointer1, *pointer2, *pointer3, *pointer4;
pointer1 = first->previous;
pointer2 = pointer1->next;
pointer3 = pointer2->next;
pointer4 = pointer3->next;
while(pointer2 != NULL){
if((strcmp(pointer2->Nachname, pointer3->Nachname)) > 0) {
swap(pointer2);
}
pointer1 = pointer1->next;
printList();
}
}
When I run swap(first); the first element doesnt get displayed since the pointer first is now pointing at the second node. Well, thats easily done with first = pointer3;
When I run swap(first->next); there is a similar problem, since it also leaves out one node of the list.
I'm not really sure how to get this function right, since first shouldnt get involved in swapping the 2nd and 3rd node of the list.
I'd appreciate any help that could help me solving this, maybe I'm just overlooking some minor mistake, but I can't really get the solution of this.
Thank you!

Sorting the list by swapping doubly linked nodes seems quite inefficient because you cannot use fast algorithms like merge sort.
You could instead use only the next links in a recursive merge sort function and reconstruct the back links on the resulting list.
Here is how to do it:
struct student {
char Vorname[51];
char Nachname[51];
int MatNr;
char Adresse[51];
int Kurse;
struct student *next;
struct student *previous;
};
struct student *first = NULL;
struct student *last = NULL;
/* Merge two sorted lists. p1 and p2 are != NULL */
struct student *merge(struct student *p1, struct student *p2) {
struct student *head, **pp;
pp = &head;
for (;;) {
if (strcmp(p1->Nachname, p2->Nachname) <= 0) {
*pp = p1;
pp = &p1->next;
p1 = p1->next;
if (p1 == NULL) {
*pp = p2;
break;
}
} else {
*pp = p2;
pp = &p2->next;
p2 = p2->next;
if (p2 == NULL) {
*pp = p1;
break;
}
}
}
return head;
}
/* Recursive top-down merge sort */
struct student *msort(struct student *np) {
struct student *p1, *p2;
/* trivial lists are sorted */
if (np == NULL || np->next == NULL)
return np;
/* locate mid-point using 2 finger method */
for (p1 = np, p2 = np->next; p2 && p2->next; p2 = p2->next->next)
p1 = p1->next;
/* split the list at mid-point */
p2 = p1->next;
p1->next = NULL;
p1 = np;
/* sort the sublists recursively */
p1 = msort(p1);
p2 = msort(p2);
return merge(p1, p2);
}
void sort(void) {
struct student *p1, *p2;
/* sort the list as a singly linked list */
first = msort(first);
/* reconstruct the backlinks */
p1 = NULL;
for (p2 = first; p2; p2 = p2->next) {
p2->last = p1;
p1 = p2;
}
last = p1;
}
As suggested by rcgldr, it may be more efficient to use a bottom-up merge sort to avoid repeated scans of the lists. Here is the alternate code:
/* bottom-up merge sort with sublist array */
struct student *msort(struct student *head) {
struct student *array[32] = { NULL };
int i;
/* handle trivial lists */
if (head == NULL || head->next == NULL)
return head;
i = 0; /* avoid warning */
p1 = head;
/* merge nodes into pending lists of increasing lengths */
while (head != NULL) {
struct student *next = head->next;
head->next = NULL;
for (i = 0; i < 32 && array[i] != NULL; i++) {
head = merge(array[i], head);
array[i] = NULL;
}
/* do not go past end of array */
if (i == 32)
i--;
array[i] = head;
head = next;
}
/* merge pending lists into single list:
* the last element stored into the array is at offset i and
* all entries before it are NULL pointers. */
for (head = array[i++]; i < 32; i++) {
if (array[i] != NULL)
head = merge(array[i], head);
}
return head;
}

Related

I am implementing a doubly linked list in C, and having segmentation fault in a destroy function

I divided the code in two files, .h and .c
The definition of function names is in .h, the implementation of the function is in .c
in my main file:
struct no
{
tipo info;
struct no *ant;
struct no *nxt;
};
struct list
{
no_t *head;
no_t *tail;
int size;
};
this is in my .h file:
typedef struct no no_t;
typedef struct list list_t;
typedef int tipo;
...again in main
void list_destroy(list_t **l)
{
if ((*l) == NULL || l == NULL)
return;
if (!(*l)->head)
return;
no_t *next = (*l)->head; //create two variables for iterating through the list
no_t *aux; //set aux to free
while (next->nxt) //the pointer for next node, in the last node, is NULL
{ //by that I believe I'm able to iterate through all nodes
aux = next;
free(aux);
next = next->nxt;
}
free(*l);
(*l) = NULL;
}
is quite a simple code, but I can't see where I'm missing here
next = next->nxt;
For the compiler it makes no difference, for sure. But for someone, even you, it is hard to read this next = next->nxt stuff. Or is it is not?
A possible alternative (using your code) and a short test program
so_list.h
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef int Tipo;
typedef struct st_no
{
Tipo info;
struct st_no* prev;
struct st_no* next;
} Node;
typedef struct
{
Node* head;
Node* tail;
unsigned size;
} List;
List* list_create();
List* list_destroy(List*);
int list_insert(const Tipo, List*);
In the header, only typedefs and the function prototypes.
names with only the first letter in uppercase are reserved here for defined names. An useful convention.
instead of using List** is often clearer to just return the pointer to the list. In this way it is easier for example to invalidate the pointer and to create the linked lists as in
List* my_list = list_create();
my_list = list_destroy(my_list);
and there is no need to test the two levels of indirection as you need when ** is used
main.c: a minimalist test set
#include "so-list.h"
int main(void)
{
List* my_list = list_create();
my_list = list_destroy(my_list);
my_list = list_create();
for (int i = 1; i <= 5; i += 1)
printf("insert(%d,list) returned %d\n",
i, list_insert(i,my_list)
);
my_list = list_destroy(my_list);
my_list = list_create();
for (int i = 11; i <= 15; i += 1)
printf("insert(%d,list) returned %d\n",
i, list_insert(i, my_list)
);
my_list = list_destroy(my_list);
return 0;
}
A list is created, then destroyed
using the same pointer, a list is created, values 1 to 5 are inserted ant then the list is deleted.
using the same pointer, a list is created, values 11 to 15 are inserted ant then the list is again deleted.
the output
List created!
List deleted!
List created!
insert(1,list) returned 1
insert(2,list) returned 2
insert(3,list) returned 3
insert(4,list) returned 4
insert(5,list) returned 5
1 deleted
2 deleted
3 deleted
4 deleted
5 deleted
List deleted!
List created!
insert(11,list) returned 1
insert(12,list) returned 2
insert(13,list) returned 3
insert(14,list) returned 4
insert(15,list) returned 5
11 deleted
12 deleted
13 deleted
14 deleted
15 deleted
List deleted!
code for destroy_list()
List* list_destroy(List* l)
{
if (l == NULL) return NULL;
// delete the ´size´ nodes, 1 by 1
Node* p = NULL;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < l->size; i += 1)
{
p = l->head->next; // save pointer
printf("%d deleted\n", l->head->info); // just for the demo
free(l->head); // free head
l->head = p; // advance head
}
free(l); // free list
printf("List deleted!\n\n"); // just for the demo
return NULL;
}
This function always return NULL as just a way to invalidade the pointer in the caller in the same expression as in pList = destroy_list(pList);
This is somewhat different than the code you wrote. We just delete the elements one by one as we know the list has size elements. A local pointer is used in the loop to save the address of the next element. It seems to be easier to read.
The complete code for so-list.c
#include "so-list.h"
List* list_create()
{
List* one = (List*)malloc(sizeof(List));
one->head = NULL;
one->tail = NULL;
one->size = 0;
printf("List created!\n");
return one;
}
List* list_destroy(List* l)
{
if (l == NULL) return NULL;
// delete the ´size´ nodes, 1 by 1
Node* p = NULL;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < l->size; i += 1)
{
p = l->head->next; // save pointer
printf("%d deleted\n", l->head->info);
free(l->head); // free head
l->head = p; // advance head
}
free(l); // free list
printf("List deleted!\n\n");
return NULL;
}
// just for test, insert ´info´ at the end, returns size
int list_insert(const Tipo info, List* l)
{
// insert node at the end, just for test
Node* one = (Node*)malloc(sizeof(Node));
one->info = info;
one->next = NULL;
one->prev = l->tail;
if (l->size == 0)
l->head = one; // 1st node
else
l->tail->next = one;
l->tail = one;
l->size += 1;
return l->size;
};
about your version of list_destroy()
The logic there is a bit wrong but the error is well described in another answer. I recommend not to use ** in this situations. But it can be done for sure.
so-list.c
This is just a minimum to have a running test
#include "so-list.h"
List* list_create()
{
List* one = (List*)malloc(sizeof(List));
one->head = NULL;
one->tail = NULL;
one->size = 0;
printf("List created!\n");
return one;
}
List* list_destroy(List* l)
{
if (l == NULL) return NULL;
// delete the ´size´ nodes, 1 by 1
Node* p = NULL;
for (unsigned i = 0; i < l->size; i += 1)
{
p = l->head->next; // save pointer
printf("%d deleted\n", l->head->info);
free(l->head); // free head
l->head = p; // advance head
}
free(l); // free list
printf("List deleted!\n\n");
return NULL;
}
// just for test, insert ´info´ at the end, returns size
int list_insert(const Tipo info, List* l)
{
// insert node at the end, just for test
Node* one = (Node*)malloc(sizeof(Node));
one->info = info;
one->next = NULL;
one->prev = l->tail;
if (l->size == 0)
l->head = one; // 1st node
else
l->tail->next = one;
l->tail = one;
l->size += 1;
return l->size;
};
This has an issue
no_t *next = (*l)->head;
no_t *aux;
while (next->nxt)
{
aux = next; // aux point to the same object as next
free(aux); // free aux, which is the same as next
next = next->nxt; // deference next, which just got free'd. OOPS!
}
You invoke free on aux, which is also aliasing next. Then you try to deference next->nxt. Well, next just got released in the previous statement. Also, as I called out in the comment, you are leaking the last element in the list.
Fixed:
no_t* aux = (*l)->head;
while (aux)
{
no_t* next = aux->nxt;
free(aux);
aux = next;
}
You should look to your "free" and your "next->nxt" statements. May it can help you solve it.

Problem with implementing a function to reverse a linked list in C

So I wanted to write a function to reverse a linked list using an array of pointers but I'm getting warnings: assignment from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]. I wanted to store the pointers to nodes of the list in an array of pointers int **s = (int **)calloc(10, sizeof(int)); and thought that s[*top] = *l will assign the pointer to which **l is pointing to *topth element of array *s[]. So am I wrong thinking that elements of array *s[] are pointers? If someone could explain it to me I'd be very glad. Here's the whole code (except the part where I create the list which is fine):
typedef struct list {
int v;
struct list *next;
} list;
void reverseListS(list **l, int **s, int *top) {
while ((*l)->next != NULL) {
s[*top] = *l;
*top++;
*l = (*l)->next;
}
list *temp = *l;
while (!(*top == 0)) {
temp->next = s[*top];
*top--;
temp = temp->next;
}
temp->next = NULL;
}
int main() {
int **s = (int **)calloc(10, sizeof(int));
int *top = 0;
reverseListS(&l, s, top);
}
Many issues. Just in main: Should be sizeof(int *) (or sizeof *s). Although, I think you want s to be an array of ints, so it should be an int *. And top does not point anywhere - why is it even a pointer?. l is not initialized.
In reverseListS at s[*top] = *l; you are trying to assign a struct list * to an int *.
I have re-written your code to work. I'm not saying this is the best way to reverse a list, but it makes the fewest modifications to your code - as I understand it.
typedef struct list {
int v;
struct list *next;
} list;
void reverseListS(list **l)
{
// Count number of items
// *this step could be skipped by dynamically resizing the array with realloc
int count = 0;
list *temp = *l;
while (temp) {
count += 1;
temp = temp->next;
}
// Allocate memory - an array of list *
list **s = malloc(count * (sizeof *s));
if (!s) return;
// Copy list item addresses to array
temp = *l;
int index = 0;
while (temp) {
s[index++] = temp;
temp = temp->next;
}
// Rebuild the list in reverse order
// *if you already have an "append_to_list" function, that should be used here
temp = NULL;
for (int i = index - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
if (!temp) {
// This is the new first item in list.
// Make the original list point to it
*l = temp = s[i];
}
else {
// Append to end of new list
temp->next = s[i];
temp = s[i];
}
s[i]->next = NULL;
}
free(s);
}
int main() {
list *l;
// TODO: Fill the list with values.
reverseListS(&l);
}

Why do these code snippets behave differently?

I am relatively new to C, and have been learning about linked lists with pointers.
I learned that
(*foo).bar is the same ad foo->bar.
foo->bar is used because it is more readable.
Therefore I do not understand why these code snippets behave differently:
1)
void appendCourse(CourseNode** pLL, Course c){
CourseNode * root = *pLL;
CourseNode* last = makeCourseNode(c);
if(root != NULL){
CourseNode node = *root;
while(node.pNext != NULL){
node = *node.pNext;
}
node.pNext = last;
} else {
*pLL = last;
}
}
and
2)
void appendCourse(CourseNode** pLL, Course c){
CourseNode * root = *pLL;
CourseNode* last = makeCourseNode(c);
if(root != NULL){
CourseNode *node = root;
while(node->pNext != NULL){
node = node->pNext;
}
node->pNext = last;
} else {
*pLL = last;
}
}
to me it looks like 1) should behave as if dereferencing first, then member access. Sort of like (*foo).bar
but 1) doesn't seem to work right at all, it can only successfully add the first element.
2) does however add all elements into the linked list.
In case this helps: my structs and other method:
typedef struct CourseNode {
struct CourseNode* pNext;
Course course;
} CourseNode;
typedef struct
{
StudentNode *pWaitlistHead; // Waitlist for this course
char szCourseId[12]; // Course Identifier
char szRoom[15]; // Room number of the course
char szDays[15]; // What days the course will meet, ex: MWF, TR, etc
char szTimes[15]; // Meeting Time, ex: 10:00-11:15am
int iAvailSeats; // Number of available seats in the course
double dFee; // Additional fees for the course
} Course;
CourseNode* makeCourseNode(Course c){
CourseNode * node = malloc(sizeof(CourseNode));
node->pNext = NULL;
node->course = c;
return node;
}
CourseNode node = *root;
while(node.pNext != NULL){
node = *node.pNext;
}
This creates a new CourseNode called node. The value of that new CourseNode is modified, but that has no affect on the linked list.
CourseNode *node = root;
while(node->pNext != NULL){
node = node->pNext;
}
Here, node points to a CourseNode that is on the linked list.
The simplest way to understand the difference is that the first code excerpt creates new CourseNodes. It's like the difference between these two:
int foo (int *i)
{
int *j = i; // j is a pointer to the same int i points to
*j = 2; // this changes the value of the int i points to
int j = *i; // this creates a new int
j = 2; // this changes the value of that new int
}

How to merge and sort two doubly linked lists in C

I am currently working on a project that takes in two text files with data and sorts them into two separate linked lists. My next step is to create a function that takes in those two lists to merge and sort them by ID in increasing order. I have started the implementation but I am stuck and need some guidance on what it is I am doing wrong for the merge sort function. Everything else is working correctly such as sorting each list individually. I just need a way to take in those two lists and merge sort them together in C. Note: I am using the Ubuntu gcc compiler.
struct List *merge_list(struct List *list1, struct List *list2)
{
struct Node *hand1 = list1->head;
struct Node *hand2 = list2->head;
struct Node *tmp1, *tmp2 = NULL;
struct List *list3 = malloc(sizeof(struct List));
while(list1 && list2 != NULL)
{
if(ptr1->id > ptr2->id)
{
ptr1 = list3->head;
ptr1 = ptr1->next;
}
else
{
ptr2 = list3->head;
ptr2 = ptr2->next;
}
}
return list3;
}
Note: Here are my Node and List structs
struct Node {
int id;
char *fname;
char *lname;
char *department;
float gpa;
struct Node *next;
struct Node *prev;
};
struct List {
struct Node *head;
struct Node *tail;
int count;
};
To merge two sorted lists:
while (hand1 && hand2) {
if (hand1->id <= hand2->id) {
tmp = hand1;
hand1 = hand1->next;
} else {
tmp = hand2;
hand2 = hand2->next;
}
insertNode(list3, tmp);
}
// either hand1 or hand2 will have some leftover elements
// they can be added to the back of list by inserting the head
if (hand1)
insertNode(list3, hand1);
else
insertNode(list3, hand2);
I've left it to you to write insertNode(). In order to preserve the sorting of the two lists, it should insert nodes at the end of the list. It should be very easy since you are tracking the tail of the list.
I would initialize the pointers in list3 to NULL and the count to 0, it should make writing insertNode() easier.
You have two doubly linked list and both are sorted and your requirement is to create a function that takes in those two lists to merge and sort them by ID in increasing order. Since both the doubly linked list is already sorted, you don't need to first merge them and then sort but you can merge them in sorted order.
You can do:
struct Node * merge_list(struct Node * head1, struct Node * head2)
{
struct Node* head3 = NULL;
struct Node* p1 = head1;
struct Node* p2 = head2;
struct Node* p3 = NULL;
while (p1 != NULL || p2 != NULL)
{
struct Node * tmp = NULL;
if (p1 == NULL) {
tmp = p2;
p2 = NULL;
} else if (p2 == NULL) {
tmp = p1;
p1 = NULL;
}
if ((p1 != NULL) && (p2 != NULL)) {
if (p1->id < p2->id) {
tmp = p1;
p1 = p1->next;
} else {
tmp = p2;
p2 = p2->next;
}
}
if (head3 == NULL) {
head3 = tmp;
} else {
p3->next = tmp;
tmp->prev = p3;
}
p3 = tmp;
}
return head3;
}
Output:
List 1:
1 3 7
List 2:
2 4 6 8
Merged list:
1 2 3 4 6 7 8
Few points about merge_list() function:
In this merge_list() function I am taking the head pointers of both the list and returning the head pointer of the merged list. But I can see that you have struct List which maintains the head and tail pointer of the lists. So, you need to do the changes accordingly in the function, like the argument and return type will be struct List * type and in the function, you need to take care of merge list tail pointer as well. The core logic is going to be same.
The function merge_list() modify the two list, which are passed as arguments to it, as it resets the next and prev pointers of the lists node in order to merge them. So, after this function call, both the lists passed as arguments to it are no more valid. Set their head and tail pointer to NULL.
If you want both the list, passed as arguments to merge_list(), intact after the merge_list() call then you need to make copy of node while adding to the merged list. For that, you need to allocate memory to tmp and wherever tmp is set to either p1 or p2, instead assign the values to tmp members. Be cautious here, if a member of the structure Node is a pointer to some memory then allocate memory to that tmp member pointer and copy the value.
Hope this helps.

Returning head of linked list from a function

The function that I have created takes the heads of two linked lists of structs and uses them to update a member of the struct in the first linked list. Once my while loop has finished I wish to return the head of the struct 'a' however currently when I return it it has a value of NULL because of the while loop. How would I return the head of 'a' once it has been updated? I know that I have to use a temporary struct but how would I implement it?
struct artist *update_counts(struct artist *a, struct play *p)
{
struct artist *tmp = a;
int count = 0;
while (a != NULL)
{
while (a->artist_id == p->artist_id)
{
count += p->playcount;
p = p->next;
}
a->playcount = count;
a = a->next;
count = 0;
}
return a;
}
Generally, to visit the linked list, we can use a head pointer to keep its original linked list head like head_p = ...inputed head node..., and then use a visitor pointer to visit linked list like visitor_p = visitor_p->next. Here in your code, tmp is that head pointer.
struct artist *update_counts(struct artist *a, struct play *p)
{
struct artist *tmp_head = a;//tmp is the head of inputed linked list a
int count = 0;
while (a != NULL)
{
while (a->artist_id == p->artist_id)
{
count += p->playcount;
p = p->next;
}
a->playcount = count;
a = a->next;
count = 0;
}
return tmp_head;//just return the head of a
}

Resources