How to work with list of strings in GLib/GTK2? Before I worked with QStringList in Qt library and now lookup how to do the same things in GLib/GTK2. I know that there are GList and GString datatypes. But I don't understand how to properly works with it. Unsure trying to google with keywords 'glib gstring glist' doesn't help me. I can't find good tutorial.
In really I need now some basics functional. Create list, fill with strings in loop, check that list contains a some string and clear list. That's all.
In Qt I can do
QStringList list;
list << "first" << "second" << "third";
for (int i = 0; i < list.length(); ++i) {
QString str = list.at(i);
if (str == "second") {
doSomeActions();
}
}
list.clear();
Which analogue in GLib? In real application strings will be allocated dynamically. So in clear() all pointers must be freed.
The Gnome developer documentation gives answers to all your questions. For GList, there are already examples given in the descriptions.
https://developer.gnome.org/glib/2.56/glib-Doubly-Linked-Lists.html
https://developer.gnome.org/glib/2.56/glib-Strings.html
Since you're not really asking a specific question, I can't give you a specific answer. Feel free to ask again if something is unclear after reading and trying out the given resources.
The QT snippet with GList would look something like this (with dynamic allocation):
GList *list = NULL;
g_list_append(list, g_strdup("first"));
g_list_append(list, g_strdup("second"));
g_list_append(list, g_strdup("third"));
for (GList *l = list; l != NULL; l = l->next) {
if (g_strcmp(l->data, "second") == 0) {
doSomeActions();
}
}
g_list_free_full(list, g_free);
Related
I'm trying to use realloc function in C, to dynamically operate on a char array of strings (char**).
I usually get a realloc():invalid old size error after 41st cicle of the for loop and I really can't understand why.
So, thanks to everyone who will help me ^-^
[EDIT] I'm trying to make the post more clear and following your advices, as a "new active member" of this community, so thank you all!
typedef struct _WordsOfInterest { // this is in an header file containing just
char **saved; // the struct and libraries
int index;
} wordsOfInterest;
int main() {
char *token1, *token2, *save1 = NULL, file[LEN], *temp, *word, **tokenArr;
int n=0, ch,ch2, flag=0, size, init=0,position,currEdit,init2=0,tempEdit,size_arr=LEN,
oldIndex=0,totalIndex=0,*editArr,counterTok=0;
wordsOfInterest toPrint;
char **final;
toPrint.index = 0;
toPrint.saved = malloc(sizeof(char*)*LEN);
editArr = malloc(sizeof(int)*LEN);
tokenArr = malloc(sizeof(char*)*LEN);
final = malloc(sizeof(char*)*1);
// external for loop
for(...) {
tokenArr[counterTok] = token1;
// internal while loop
while(...) {
// some code here surely not involved in the issue
} else {
if(init2 == 0) {
currEdit = config(token1,token2);
toPrint.saved[toPrint.index] = token2;
toPrint.index++;
init2 = 1;
} else {
if((abs((int)strlen(token1)-(int)strlen(token2)))<=currEdit) {
if((tempEdit = config(token1,token2)) == currEdit) {
toPrint.saved[toPrint.index] = token2;
toPrint.index++;
if(toPrint.index == size_arr-1) {
size_arr = size_arr*2;
toPrint.saved = realloc(toPrint.saved, size_arr);
}
} else if((tempEdit = config(token1,token2))<currEdit) {
freeArr(toPrint, size_arr);
toPrint.saved[toPrint.index] = token2;
toPrint.index++;
currEdit = tempEdit;
}
}
}
flag = 0;
word = NULL;
temp = NULL;
freeArr(toPrint, size_arr);
}
}
editArr[counterTok] = currEdit;
init2 = 0;
totalIndex = totalIndex + toPrint.index + 1;
final = realloc(final, (sizeof(char*)*totalIndex));
uniteArr(toPrint, final, oldIndex);
oldIndex = toPrint.index;
freeArr(toPrint,size_arr);
fseek(fp2,0,SEEK_SET);
counterTok++;
}
You start with final uninitialized.
char **final;
change it to:
char **final = NULL;
Even if you are starting with no allocation, it needs a valid value (e.g. NULL) because if you don't initialize a local variable to NULL, it gets garbage, and realloc() will think it is reallocating a valid chunk of memory and will fail into Undefined Behaviour. This is probably your problem, but as you have eliminated a lot of code in between the declaration and the first usage of realloc, whe cannot guess what is happening here.
Anyway, if you have indeed initialized it, I cannot say, as you have hidden part of the code, unlistening the recommendation of How to create a Minimal, Reproducible Example
.
There are several reasons (mostly explained there) to provide a full but m inimal, out of the box, failing code. This allows us to test that code without having to provide (and probably solving, all or part) the neccesary code to make it run. If you only post a concept, you cannot expect from us complete, full running, and tested code, degrading strongly the quality of SO answers.
This means you have work to do before posting, not just eliminating what you think is not worth mentioning.
You need to build a sample that, with minimum code, shows the actual behaviour you see (a nonworking complete program) This means eliminating everything that is not related to the problem.
You need (and this is by far more important) to, before sending the code, to test it at your site, and see that it behaves as you see at home. There are many examples that, when eliminated the unrelated code, don't show the commented behaviour.
...and then, without touching anymore the code, send it as is. Many times we see code that has been touched before sending, and the problem dissapeared.
If we need to build a program, we will probably do it with many other mistakes, but not yours, and this desvirtuates the purpose of this forum.
Finally, sorry for the flame.... but it is necessary to make people read the rules.
I've done some looking around and can't really find a good source that even addresses the idea.
First: It's well known that we should always check if malloc() and realloc() return null. This is commonly done in some way similar to:
Word* temp;
if ((temp = (Word*)malloc(sizeof(Word))) == NULL) {
fprintf(stderr, "unable to malloc for node.\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
However, we also generally build binary search trees in a recursive manner, like so:
void buildTree(Word** tree, const char* input) {
//See if we have found the spot to insert the node.
//Do this by checking for NULL
if (!(*tree)) {
*tree = createNode(input);
return;
}
//else, move left or right accordingly.
if (strcmp(input, (*tree)->data) < 0)
buildTree(&(*tree)->left, input);
else
buildTree(&(*tree)->right, input);
return;
}
So, what do we do if we start working with massive data sets and malloc() fails to allocate memory in the middle of that recursive buildTree function? I've tried a number of things from keeping track of a "global error" flag and a "global head" node pointer and it just seems to be more and more messy the more I try. Examples working with building BSTs rarely seem to give any thought to malloc() failing, so they aren't really helpful in this regard.
I can logically see that one answer is "Don't use recursion and return the head of the tree each time." and while I can see why that would work, I'm an undergraduate TA and one of the things we use BSTs to teach is recursion. So, saying "don't use recursion" to my students when we are TEACHING recursion would be self-defeating.
Any thoughts, suggestions, or links would be greatly appreciated.
We usually use a return error and let the caller free it, after all it could very well free other non critical resources and try to insert the node again.
#define BUILD_OK 0
#define BUILD_FAILED 1
int buildTree(Word** tree, const char* input) {
int res;
//See if we have found the spot to insert the node.
//Do this by checking for NULL
if (!(*tree)) {
if (!(*tree = createNode(input)))
return BUILD_FAILED;
//Maybe other checks
return BUILD_OK;
}
//else, move left or right accordingly.
if (strcmp(input, (*tree)->data) < 0)
res = buildTree(&(*tree)->left, input);
else
res = buildTree(&(*tree)->right, input);
return res;
}
I am creating a program in c which is based on a linked list, where every node (of struct) holds an integer and a pointer to the next node.
I use dynamic allocation (malloc) and deallocation (free) as new nodes are added and old nodes are deleted.
when a node is deleted a function named delete is called.
I discovered that the program crashes sometimes when this delete-function is called and I KNOW that its something with the pointers in the method but I dont know WHERE in the code (row number) and WHY this happends.
I am used to high-level languages such as Java and I am used to encircle the problem by putting print-syntax at certain places in the method just to reveal WHERE it crashes.
I thought I could do the same with c and with pointer because to my knowledge I beleive the code is read from top to bottom that is 1, 2, 3, 4, and so on. (maybe interrupt handlers behave another way?)
So in this function named delete I have gone so far by putting this printf() at the very beginning of the delete-function - and all the same the program crashes.
So my Question - is it really possible that its some syntax in the delete-function (when I loop pointers for instance) that causes the crash WHEN not even the printf() is printing?
Am I wrong when I believe that the program is executed from to to bottom - that is 1, 2, 3 ....
You can se my printf-function in the very beginning of delete-function
And by the way - how could I solve this problem when I get this cryptic crash message from windows? See the bitmap!!
Greatful for answers!!!
int delete(int data) {
printf("IN THE BEGINNING OF DELETE!!!");
int result = 0;
if (queueref.last != NULL) {
node *curr_ptr;
node *prev_ptr;
node *temp_ptr;
if (queueref.first->data == data) {
temp_ptr = queueref.first;
queueref.first = queueref.first->next;
destroy_node(temp_ptr);
result = 1;
if (queueref.first == NULL) {
queueref.last = NULL;
puts("queue is now empty!!!");
}
} else {
prev_ptr = queueref.first;
curr_ptr = queueref.first->next;
printf("prev_ptr: %d\n", prev_ptr);
printf("curr_ptr: %d\n", curr_ptr);
while(curr_ptr != NULL) {
if (curr_ptr->data == data) {
result = 1;
if (curr_ptr->next != NULL) {
temp_ptr = curr_ptr;
destroy_node(temp_ptr);
prev_ptr->next = curr_ptr->next;
} else {
temp_ptr = curr_ptr;
queueref.last = prev_ptr;
prev_ptr->next = NULL;
destroy_node(temp_ptr);
}
}
curr_ptr = curr_ptr->next;
prev_ptr = prev_ptr->next;
}
}
}
return result;
}
Common mistake, here's the deal. This
printf("IN THE BEGINNING OF DELETE!!!");
needs to be
printf("IN THE BEGINNING OF DELETE!!!\n");
^^ note the newline
The reason is because stdio does not flush stdout until it sees a newline. If you add that newline, you should see the printf when the code enters the function. Without it, the program could crash, the stdout buffer would not have been flushed and would not see the printf.
Your code seems to have lots of implementation flaws. As a general advice I would recommend using some standard well-tested queue support library and static code analyzers (in this case you would even find dynamic analyzer valgrind very helpful, I guess).
For example, if implementation of destroy_node(ptr) is equivalent to free(ptr), then your code suffers from referencing destroyed data (or ,in other words, garbage) in this code snippet:
while(curr_ptr != NULL) {
if (curr_ptr->data == data) {
result = 1;
if (curr_ptr->next != NULL) {
temp_ptr = curr_ptr;
destroy_node(temp_ptr);
prev_ptr->next = curr_ptr->next; //<- curr_ptr is still in stack
//or register, but curr->next
//is garbage
// what if curr_ptr is first node? did you forget to update queueref.first?
} else {
temp_ptr = curr_ptr;
queueref.last = prev_ptr;
prev_ptr->next = NULL;
destroy_node(temp_ptr);
}
// if you you need to destroy only one node - you can leave the loop here with break;
}
curr_ptr = curr_ptr->next; /// assigning garbage again if node is found
prev_ptr = prev_ptr->next;
The reason why using destroyed data can work in * most * (if I can say that, basically this is unpredictable) cases is that the chances that this memory can be reused by other part of program for dynamically allocated data can vary on timings and code flow.
PS
Regarding cryptic messages in the Windows box - when program crashes OS basically generates crashdump and prints registers (and dumps some relevant memory parts). Registers and memory dumps can show the place of crash and immediate register/stack values but you have to now memory map and assembler output to understand it. Crashdump can be loaded to debugger (WinDbg) together with unstripped binary to check stactrace and values of local variables at the moment of crash. All these I described very very briefly, you could find tons of books / guides searching for "windows crash or crashdump analysis"
I'm parsing some xml files in C using libxml library. I want to compare two xmlnodes to see whether they contain the same data or not. Is there any function available to do so?
The libxml API docs seem reasonable and suggest that xmlBufGetNodeContent and xmlBufContent might do what you want.
xmlNode node1, node2;
......
xmlBuf buf;
xmlChar* content1 = NULL;
xmlChar* content2 = NULL;
if (xmlBufGetNodeContent(&buf, &node1) == 0) {
content1 = xmlBufContent(&buf);
}
if (xmlBufGetNodeContent(&buf, &node2) == 0) {
content2 = xmlBufContent(&buf);
}
if (strcmp(content1, content2) == 0) {
/* nodes match */
}
I don't think the api calls xmlBufGetNodeContent and xmlBufContent are any more valid.
As the datatype involved in those calls - xmlBufPtr are no more available , atleast not on
libxml2 2.7.6
I used a different api call xmlNodeDump or xmlNodeGetContent. hope it helps others with similar question.
Also I am doing a c implementation and currently have the structure of the queue:
typedef struct queueelem {
queuedata_t data;
struct queueelem *next;
} queueelem_t;
typedef struct queue {
int capacity;
int size;
queueelem_t *head;
queueelem_t *tail;
} queue_t;
queue_t *
queue_init(int capacity)
{
queue_t *q = (queue_t *) malloc(sizeof(queue_t));
q->head = q->tail = NULL;
q->size = 0;
q->capacity = capacity;
return q;
}
int CompareAndExchange (void **a, void *comparand,void *new) {
int success = 0;
pthread_mutex_lock(&CE_MUTEX);
if ((*a) != comparand) {
(*a) = new;
//return TRUE
success = 1;
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&CE_MUTEX);
//return FALSE
return success;
}
But not sure How to continue, with queue and dequeue functions...
How would the code look like?
Sometime ago, I've found a nice solution to this problem. I believe that it the smallest found so far.
The repository has a example of how use it to create N threads (readers and writers) and make then share a single seat.
I made some benchmarks, on the test example and got the following results (in million ops/sec) :
By buffer size
By number of threads
Notice how the number of threads do not change the throughput.
I think this is the ultimate solution to this problem. It works and is incredible fast and simple. Even with hundreds of threads and a queue of a single position. It can be used as a pipeline beween threads, allocating space inside the queue.
The repository has some early versions written in C# and pascal. Im working to make something more complete polished to show its real powers.
I hope some of you can validate the work or help with some ideas. Or at least, can you break it?
Your pseudo-code can (and most likely does) suffer from the ABA problem, as only the pointer is checked, and not an accompanying unique stamp, you'll find this paper of use in that regard and as a general guide to lock-free queue implementation, with its pitfalls.
When dealing with lock free programing, its also a good idea to read up on Herb Sutter's works, as He gives good, insightful explanations to whats required, why its required and its potential weak points (though beware that some of his older publications/articles where found to contain some hidden/unforseen problems).
and also the recent boost'con talk about this subject :
https://github.com/boostcon/2011_presentations/raw/master/wed/lockfree_2011_slides.pdf
(Leaving this here for now, but see edit.)
Do you know a implementation of lock free queue in C?
I wrote lockless queue recently (http://www.ideone.com/l2QRp). I can't actually guarantee it works correctly, but I can't find any bugs and I've used it in a couple of single threaded programs without any problems, so there's nothing too obvious wrong with it.
Trivial usage example:
queue_t queue;
int val = 42;
queue_init(&queue,sizeof val);
queue_put(&queue,&val);
val = 0;
queue_pop(&queue,&val);
printf("%i\n",val); // 42
queue_destroy(&queue);
Edit:
As #Alexey Kukanov pointed out, queue_pop can fail if tmp is popped,freed,allocated again, and put again between checking for null and swapping:
if(!tmp->next) return errno = ENODATA;
/* can fail here */
} while(!sync_swap(q->head,tmp,tmp->next));
I'm not yet sure how to fix this, but I'll (hopefully) update this once I figure it out. For now, disregard this.
You may try this library it is built in c native. lfqueue
For Example
int* int_data;
lfqueue_t my_queue;
if (lfqueue_init(&my_queue) == -1)
return -1;
/** Wrap This scope in other threads **/
int_data = (int*) malloc(sizeof(int));
assert(int_data != NULL);
*int_data = i++;
/*Enqueue*/
while (lfqueue_enq(&my_queue, int_data) == -1) {
printf("ENQ Full ?\n");
}
/** Wrap This scope in other threads **/
/*Dequeue*/
while ( (int_data = lfqueue_deq(&my_queue)) == NULL) {
printf("DEQ EMPTY ..\n");
}
// printf("%d\n", *(int*) int_data );
free(int_data);
/** End **/
lfqueue_destroy(&my_queue);