Recovering elements of large array with multiple index ranges - c

This is a tricky problem that I have been thinking about for a long time and have yet to see a satisfactory answer anywhere. Lets say I have a large int array of size 10000. I can simply declare it in the following manner:
int main()
{
int foo[10000];
int i;
int n;
n = sizeof(foo) / sizeof(int);
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
printf("Index %d is %d\n",i,foo[i] );
}
return 0;
}
It is pretty clear that each index in the array will hold a random assortment of numbers before I formally initialize them:
Index 0 is 0
Index 1 is 0
Index 2 is 0
Index 3 is 0
.
.
.
Index 6087 is 0
Index 6088 is 1377050464
Index 6089 is 32767
Index 6090 is 1680893034
.
.
.
Index 9996 is 0
Index 9997 is 0
Index 9998 is 0
Index 9999 is 0
Then lets say that I initialize select index ranges of my array with values that hold a specific value for the program as a whole and must be preserved, with the goal of passing in those values for subsequent operation to some function:
//Call this block 1
foo[0] = 0;
foo[1] = 7;
foo[2] = 99;
foo[3] = 0;
//Call this block 2
foo[9996] = 0;
foo[9997] = 444;
foo[9998] = 2;
foo[9999] = 0;
for (i = 0; i < (What goes here?); i++)
{
//I must pass in only those values initialized to select indices of foo[] (Blocks 1 and 2 uncorrupted)
//How to recover those values to pass into foo_func()?
foo_func(foo[]);
}
Some of those values that I initialized foo[] with overlap with pre-existing values in the array before formally initializing the array myself. How can I pass in just the indices of the array elements that I initialized, given that there are multiple index ranges? I just can't figure this out. Thanks for any and all help!
EDIT:
I should also mention that the array itself will be read from a .txt file. I just showed the initialization in the code for illustrative purposes.

There's a number of ways you can quickly zero out the memory in the array, either while initializing or after.
For an array on the stack, initialize it with zeros. {0} is shorthand for that.
int foo[10000] = {0};
For an array on the heap, use calloc to allocate memory and initialize it with 0's.
int *foo = calloc(10000, sizeof(int));
If the array already exists, use memset to quickly overwrite all the array's memory with zeros.
memset(foo, 0, sizeof(int) * 10000);
Now all elements are zero. You can set individual elements to whatever you like one by one. For example...
int main() {
int foo[10] = {0};
foo[1] = 7;
foo[2] = 99;
foo[7] = 444;
foo[8] = 2;
for( int i = 0; i < 10; i++ ) {
printf("%d - %d\n", i, foo[i]);
}
}
That will print...
0 - 0
1 - 7
2 - 99
3 - 0
4 - 0
5 - 0
6 - 0
7 - 444
8 - 2
9 - 0
As a side note, using only a few elements of a large array is a waste of memory. Instead, use a hash table, or if you need ordering, some type of tree. These can be difficult to implement correctly, but a library such as GLib can provide you with good implementations.

Introduction
I'm making a strong assumption on your problem, and it is sparsness (a majority of the elements in your array will remain zero).
Under this assumption I would build the array as a list. I'm including a sample code, that it is not complete and it is not intended to
be---you should do your own homework :)
The core object is a struct with a pointer to a begin element and the size:
typedef struct vector {
size_t size;
vector_element_t * begin;
} vector_t;
each element of the vector has its own index and value and a pointer to the next element in a list:
typedef struct vector_element vector_element_t;
struct vector_element {
int value;
size_t index;
vector_element_t *next;
};
on this basis we can build a dynamical vector as a list, by dropping a constraint on the ordering (it is not needed, you can modify this code
to maintain the ordering), using some simple custom methods:
vector_t * vector_init(); // Initialize an empty array
void vector_destroy(vector_t* v); // Destroy the content and the array itself
int vector_get(vector_t *v, size_t index); // Get an element from the array, by searching the index
size_t vector_set(vector_t *v, size_t index, int value); // Set an element at the index
void vector_delete(vector_t *v, size_t index); // Delete an element from the vector
void vector_each(vector_t *v, int(*f)(size_t index, int value)); // Executes a callback for each element of the list
// This last function may be the response to your question
Test it online
The main example
This is a main that uses all this methods and prints in console:
int callback(size_t index, int value) {
printf("Vector[%lu] = %d\n", index, value);
return value;
}
int main() {
vector_t * vec = vector_init();
vector_set(vec, 10, 5);
vector_set(vec, 23, 9);
vector_set(vec, 1000, 3);
printf("vector_get(vec, %d) = %d\n", 1000, vector_get(vec, 1000)); // This should print 3
printf("vector_get(vec, %d) = %d\n", 1, vector_get(vec, 1)); // this should print 0
printf("size(vec) = %lu\n", vec->size); // this should print 3 (the size of initialized elements)
vector_each(vec, callback); // Calling the callback on each element of the
// array that is initialized, as you asked.
vector_delete(vec, 23);
printf("size(vec) = %lu\n", vec->size);
vector_each(vec, callback); // Calling the callback on each element of the array
vector_destroy(vec);
return 0;
}
And the output:
vector_get(vec, 1000) = 3
vector_get(vec, 1) = 0
size(vec) = 3
Vector[10] = 5
Vector[23] = 9
Vector[1000] = 3
size(vec) = 3
Vector[10] = 5
Vector[1000] = 3
The callback with the function vector_each is something you really should look at.
Implementations
I'm giving you some trivial implementations for the functions in the introdution. They are not complete,
and some checks on pointers should be introduced. I'm leaving that to you. As it is, this code is not for production and under some circumstances can also overflow.
The particular part is the search of a specific element in the vector. Every time you tranverse the list,
and this is convenient only and only if you have sparsity (the majority of your index will always return zero).
In this implementation, if you access an index that is not enlisted, you get as a result 0. If you don't want this
you should define an error callback.
Initialization and destruction
When we initialize, we allocate the memory for our vector, but with no elements inside, thus begin points to NULL. When we destroy the vector we have not only to free the vector, but also each element contained.
vector_t * vector_init() {
vector_t * v = (vector_t*)malloc(sizeof(vector_t));
if (v) {
v->begin = NULL;
v->size = 0;
return v;
}
return NULL;
}
void vector_destroy(vector_t *v) {
if (v) {
vector_element_t * curr = v->begin;
if (curr) {
vector_element_t * next = curr->next;
while (next) {
curr = curr->next;
next = next->next;
if (curr)
free(curr);
}
if (next)
free(next);
}
free(v);
}
}
The get and set methods
In get you can see how the list works (and the same concept
is used also in set and delete): we start from the begin, and
we cross the list until we reach an element with an index equal
to the one requested. If we cannot find it we simply return 0.
If we need to "raise some sort of signal" when the value is
not found, it is easy to implement an "error callback".
As long as sparsness holds, searching in the whole array for an index is a good compromise in terms of memory requirements, and efficiency may be not an issue.
int vector_get(vector_t *v, size_t index) {
vector_element_t * el = v->begin;
while (el != NULL) {
if (el->index == index)
return el->value;
el = el->next;
}
return 0;
}
// Gosh, this set function is really a mess... I hope you can understand it...
// -.-'
size_t vector_set(vector_t *v, size_t index, int value) {
vector_element_t * el = v->begin;
// Case 1: Initialize the first element of the array
if (el == NULL) {
el = (vector_element_t *)malloc(sizeof(vector_element_t));
if (el != NULL) {
v->begin = el;
v->size += 1;
el->index = index;
el->value = value;
el->next = NULL;
return v->size;
} else {
return 0;
}
}
// Case 2: Search for the element in the array
while (el != NULL) {
if (el->index == index) {
el->value = value;
return v->size;
}
// Case 3: if there is no element with that index creates a new element
if (el->next == NULL) {
el->next = (vector_element_t *)malloc(sizeof(vector_element_t));
if (el->next != NULL) {
v->size += 1;
el->next->index = index;
el->next->value = value;
el->next->next = NULL;
return v->size;
}
return 0;
}
el = el->next;
}
}
Deleting an element
With this approach it is possible to delete an element quite easily, connecting
curr->next to curr->next->next. We must though free the previous curr->next...
void vector_delete(vector_t * v, size_t index) {
vector_element_t *curr = v->begin;
vector_element_t *next = curr->next;
while (next != NULL) {
if (next->index == index) {
curr->next = next->next;
free(next);
return;
} else {
curr = next;
next = next->next;
}
}
}
An iteration function
I think this is the answer to the last part of your question,
instead passing a sequence of indexes, you pass a callback to the vector.
The callback gets and sets value in a specific index. If you want to
operate only on some specific indexes, you may include a check in the
callback itself. If you need to pass more data to the callback, check
the very last section.
void vector_each(vector_t * v, int (*f)(size_t index, int value)) {
vector_element_t *el = v->begin;
while (el) {
el->value = f(el->index, el->value);
el = el->next;
}
}
Error callback
You may want to raise some out of bounds error or something else. One solution is to enrich your list with function pointer that represent a callback that should be called when your user sk for an undefined element:
typedef struct vector {
size_t size;
vector_element_t *begin;
void (*error_undefined)(vector *v, size_t index);
} vector_t
and maybe at the end of your vector_get function you may want to do something like:
int vector_get(vector_t *v, size_t index) {
// [ . . .]
// you know at index the element is undefined:
if (v->error_undefined)
v->error_undefined(v, index);
else {
// Do something to clean up the user mess... or simply
return 0;
}
}
usually it is nice to add also an helper function to set the callback...
Passing user data to "each" callback
If you want to pass more data to the user callback, you may add a void* as last argument:
void vector_each(vector_t * v, void * user_data, int (*f)(size_t index, int value, void * user_data));
void vector_each(vector_t * v, void * user_data, int (*f)(size_t index, int value, void * user_data)) {
[...]
el->value = f(el->index, el->value, user_data);
[...]
}
if the user do not need it, he can pass a wonderful NULL.

Related

last number in a function array

I want to write a function where I have a given array and number N. The last occurrence of this number I want to return address. If said number cannot be found I want to use a NULL-pointer
Start of the code I've made:
int main(void) {
int n = 3;
int ary[6] = { 1,3,7,8,3,9 };
for (int i = 0; i <= 6; i++) {
if (ary[i] == 3) {
printf("%u\n", ary[i]);
}
}
return 0;
}
result in command prompt:
3
3
The biggest trouble I'm having is:
it prints all occurrences, but not the last occurrence as I want
I haven't used pointers much, so I don't understand how to use the NULL-pointer
I see many minor problems in your program:
If you want to make a function, make a function so your parameters and return types are explicit, instead of coding directly in the main.
C arrays, like in most languages, start the indexing at 0 so if there are N element the first has index 0, then the second has 1, etc... So the very last element (the Nth) has index N-1, so in your for loops, always have condition "i < size", not "i <= size" or ( "i <= size-1" if y'r a weirdo)
If you want to act only on the last occurence of something, don't act on every. Just save every new occurence to the same variable and then, when you're sure it was the last, act on it.
A final version of the function you describe would be:
int* lastOccurence(int n, int* arr, int size){
int* pos = NULL;
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++){
if(arr[i] == n){
pos = &arr[i]; //Should be equal to arr + i*sizeof(int)
}
}
return pos;
}
int main(void){
int n = 3;
int ary[6] = { 1,3,7,8,3,9 };
printf("%p\n", lastOccurence(3, ary, 6);
return 0;
}
Then I'll add that the NULL pointer is just 0, I mean there is literally the line "#define NULL 0" inside the runtime headers. It is just a convention that the memory address 0 doesn't exist and we use NULL instead of 0 for clarity, but it's exactly the same.
Bugs:
i <= 6 accesses the array out of bounds, change to i < 6.
printf("%u\n", ary[i]); prints the value, not the index.
You don't actually compare the value against n but against a hard-coded 3.
I think that you are looking for something like this:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int n = 3;
int ary[6] = { 1,3,7,8,3,9 };
int* last_index = NULL;
for (int i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
if (ary[i] == n) {
last_index = &ary[i];
}
}
if(last_index == NULL) {
printf("Number not found\n");
}
else {
printf("Last index: %d\n", (int)(last_index - ary));
}
return 0;
}
The pointer last_index points at the last found item, if any. By subtracting the array's base address last_index - ary we do pointer arithmetic and get the array item.
The cast to int is necessary to avoid a quirk where subtracting pointers in C actually gives the result in a large integer type called ptrdiff_t - beginners need not worry about that one, so just cast.
First of all, you will read from out of array range, since your array last element is 5, and you read up to 6, which can lead in segmentation faults. #Ludin is right saying that you should change
for (int i = 0; i <= 6; i++) // reads from 0 to 6 range! It is roughly equal to for (int i = 0; i == 6; i++)
to:
for (int i = 0; i < 6; i++) // reads from 0 to 5
The last occurrence of this number I want to return as address.
You are printing only value of 3, not address. To do so, you need to use & operator.
If said number cannot be found I want to use a NULL-pointer
I don't understand, where do you want to return nullpointer? Main function can't return nullpointer, it is contradictory to its definition. To do so, you need to place it in separate function, and then return NULL.
If you want to return last occurence, then I would iterate from the end of this array:
for (int i = 5; i > -1; i--) {
if (ary[i] == 3) {
printf("place in array: %u\n", i); // to print iterator
printf("place in memory: %p\n", &(ary[i])); // to print pointer
break; // if you want to print only last occurence in array and don't read ruther
}
else if (i == 0) {
printf("None occurences found");
}
}
If you want to return an address you need yo use a function instead of writing code in main
As you want to return the address of the last occurence, you should iterate the array from last element towards the first element instead of iterating from first towards last elements.
Below are 2 different implementations of such a function.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <assert.h>
int* f(int n, size_t sz, int a[])
{
assert(sz > 0 && a != NULL);
// Iterate the array from last element towards first element
int* p = a + sz;
do
{
--p;
if (*p == n) return p;
} while(p != a);
return NULL;
}
int* g(int n, size_t sz, int a[])
{
assert(sz > 0 && a != NULL);
// Iterate the array from last element towards first element
size_t i = sz;
do
{
--i;
if (a[i] == n) return &a[i];
} while (i > 0);
return NULL;
}
int main(void)
{
int n = 3;
int ary[] = { 1,3,7,8,3,9 };
size_t elements = sizeof ary / sizeof ary[0];
int* p;
p = g(n, elements, ary); // or p = f(n, elements, ary);
if (p != NULL)
{
printf("Found at address %p - value %d\n", (void*)p, *p);
}
else
{
printf("Not found. The function returned %p\n", (void*)p);
}
return 0;
}
Working on the specified requirements in your question (i.e. a function that searches for the number and returns the address of its last occurrence, or NULL), the code below gives one way of fulfilling those. The comments included are intended to be self-explanatory.
#include <stdio.h>
// Note that an array, passed as an argument, is converted to a pointer (to the
// first element). We can change this in our function, because that pointer is
// passed BY VALUE (i.e. it's a copy), so it won't change the original
int* FindLast(int* arr, size_t length, int find)
{
int* answer = NULL; // The result pointer: set to NULL to start off with
for (size_t i = 0; i < length; ++i) { // Note the use of < rather than <=
if (*arr == find) {
answer = arr; // Found, so set our pointer to the ADDRESS of this element
// Note that, if multiple occurrences exist, the LAST one will be the answer
}
++arr; // Move on to the next element's address
}
return answer;
}
int main(void)
{
int num = 3; // Number to find
int ary[6] = { 1,3,7,8,3,9 }; // array to search
size_t arrlen = sizeof(ary) / sizeof(ary[0]); // Classic way to get length of an array
int* result = FindLast(ary, arrlen, num); // Call the function!
if (result == NULL) { // No match was found ...
printf("No match was found in the array!\n");
}
else {
printf("The address of the last match found is %p.\n", (void*)result); // Show the address
printf("The element at that address is: %d\n", *result); // Just for a verification/check!
}
return 0;
}
Lots of answers so far. All very good answers, too, so I won't repeat the same commentary about array bounds, etc.
I will, however, take a different approach and state, "I want to use a NULL-pointer" is a silly prerequisite for this task serving only to muddle and complicate a very simple problem. "I want to use ..." is chopping off your nose to spite your face.
The KISS principle is to "Keep It Simple, St....!!" Those who will read/modify your code will appreciate your efforts far more than admiring you for making wrong decisions that makes their day worse.
Arrays are easy to conceive of in terms of indexing to reach each element. If you want to train in the use of pointers and NULL pointers, I suggest you explore "linked lists" and/or "binary trees". Those data structures are founded on the utility of pointers.
int main( void ) {
const int n = 3, ary[] = { 1, 3, 7, 8, 3, 9 };
size_t sz = sizeof ary/sizeof ary[0];
// search for the LAST match by starting at the end, not the beginning.
while( sz-- )
if( ary[ sz ] == n ) {
printf( "ary[ %sz ] = %d\n", sz, n );
return 0;
}
puts( "not found" );
return 1; // failed to find it.
}
Consider that the array to be searched is many megabytes. To find the LAST match, it makes sense to start at the tail, not the head of the array.
Simple...

How to write a C function to detect cycles in a void* array

I'm trying to implement the C function int contains_cycle(void *const array[], size_t length) to detect if there are any "cycles" in an array of void pointers. All elements of this array either point to an adress of this array or to NULL. Pointers still quite overwhelm me and I've got no idea where to start.
Just to clarify, what I mean by cycle, here are some examples. Just for illustration the first element's adress is always at adress 0x1 and pointers have the size of 1 byte.
{NULL, 0x3, 0x2} -> should return 1, cycle between array[1] and array [2]
{0x2, 0x3, 0x1} -> should return 1, cycle between all the elements
{0x2, 0x3, NULL} -> should return 0, no cycle
I would appreciate any help and if my goal is still not quite clear, I am happy to explain more.
My idea would be iterating over the array and somehowe "follow" the pointers to see if I end up on the starting point again. If that's the case for at least one element, I've found a cycle.
Yes. You just "follow the pointers", but you need to know whether you followed to a pointer that you already hit.
So my idea to solve your problem is to make a struct that contains an index instead of a pointer because this makes life so much easier...
typedef struct {
size_t toIndex;
bool marked;
} Entry;
Then I create a new array of all these entries with the same length as the original. I calculate the toIndex that I store in the struct using the current element's pointer minus the address of the array's beginning.
bool contains_cycle(void* array[], size_t length) {
Entry newArray[length];
for(size_t i = 0; i < length; ++i) {
size_t toIndex = ((size_t) array[i] - (size_t) &array[0] ) / sizeof *array;
newArray[i] = (Entry) { toIndex, false };
}
After that I look for the first index where the pointer is not null
size_t index = 0;
for(size_t i = 0; i < length; ++i) {
if (array[i] == NULL) continue;
index = i;
break;
}
Now, if we just let a loop run until we hit some index that is out of bounds (this will implicitly detect if we hit a NULL-element) and check if the current element is already marked. if so, return true.
while(index < length) {
if (newArray[index].marked) return true;
newArray[index].marked = true;
index = newArray[index].toIndex;
}
If the loop exits without a return you know that the loop did not start from there. You now need to check if the loop started from any other index that you haven't marked yet. But I'm too lazy to implement that now. Go try this yourself :)
For now I just return false
return false;
}
I tried to replicate your examples in the main function.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
typedef struct {
size_t toIndex;
bool marked;
} Entry;
bool contains_cycle(void* array[], size_t length) {
Entry newArray[length];
for(size_t i = 0; i < length; ++i) {
size_t toIndex = ((size_t) array[i] - (size_t) &array[0] ) / sizeof *array;
newArray[i] = (Entry) { toIndex, false };
}
size_t index = 0;
for(size_t i = 0; i < length; ++i) {
if (array[i] == NULL) continue;
index = i;
break;
}
while(index < length) {
if (newArray[index].marked) return true;
newArray[index].marked = true;
index = newArray[index].toIndex;
}
return false;
}
int main() {
void* example1[3];
void* example2[3];
void* example3[3];
example1[0] = NULL;
example1[1] = &example1[2];
example1[2] = &example1[1];
example2[0] = &example2[1];
example2[1] = &example2[2];
example2[2] = &example2[0];
example3[0] = &example3[1];
example3[1] = &example3[2];
example3[2] = NULL;
printf("%d ", contains_cycle(example1, 3));
printf("%d ", contains_cycle(example2, 3));
printf("%d ", contains_cycle(example3, 3));
}
I'm certain that there can be a faster way but the one above does work with your examples

How do I free struct pointers with nested double pointers?

I pasted code at the bottom that allocates lots of pointers but doesn't free any. I have a struct named Node that has fields of type struct Node**. In my main function I have the variable: Node** nodes = malloc(size * typeof(Node*));. I would like to know how to properly deallocate nodes.
typedef struct Node {
size_t id; // identifier of the node
int data; // actual data
size_t num_parents; // actual number of parent nodes
size_t size_parents; // current maximum capacity of array of parent nodes
struct Node** parents; // all nodes that connect from "upstream"
size_t num_children; // actual number of child nodes
size_t size_children; // current maximum capacity of array of children nodes
struct Node** children; // all nodes that connect "downstream"
} Node;
I've pasted the whole code down at the bottom because it is already almost minimal (only things we don't need here are the printing function and find_smallest_value function). VS2019 also gives me two warnings for two lines within the main loop in the main function where I'm allocating each node:
Node** nodes = malloc((num_nodes + 1) * sizeof(Node*));
for (size_t i = 1; i <= num_nodes; i++) {
nodes[i] = malloc(sizeof(Node)); // WARNING Buffer overrun while writing to 'nodes': the writable size is '((num_nodes+1))*sizeof(Node *)' bytes, but '16' bytes might be written.
nodes[i]->id = i; // WARNING Reading invalid data from 'nodes': the readable size is '((num_nodes+1))*sizeof(Node *)' bytes, but '16' bytes may be read.
I don't understand these warnings at all. Finally, you can obtain large input for this program from this website. Just save it to a text file and modify the hardcoded file name in the main function. The program runs fine if I comment out the last lines where I try to deallocate my nodes. My attempt at deallocating crashes the program. I'd greatly appreciate if anyone could explain the correct way to do it.
Explaining the purpose of the code:
The code at the bottom has the following goal. I'm trying to build a directed graph where every vertex has a label and a value. An example of such a graph. The graphs I'm interested in all represent hierarchies. I am to perform two operations on these graphs: I. given a vertex, find the one with smallest value that above it in the hierarchy and print its value; II. given a pair of vertices, swap their places. For example, given vertices 4 and 2 in that figure, the result of operation II would be the same graph but the vertices labelled 2 and 4 would have their labels and data swapped. Given vertex 6, the result of operation I would be "18". I implemented both operations successfully, I believe.
My main function reads from a txt file in order to build the data structure, which I chose to be a multiply linked list. Any input file should be of the following format (this file generates the graph shown in the figure and performs some operations on it):
7 8 9
21 33 33 18 42 22 26
1 2
1 3
2 5
3 5
3 6
4 6
4 7
6 7
P 7
T 4 2
P 7
P 5
T 1 4
P 7
T 4 7
P 2
P 6
First line has three numbers: number of vertices (nodes), number of edges (k, connections) and number of instructions (l, either operation I or II).
Second line is the data in each node. Labels correspond to the index of the node.
The next k lines consist of two node labels: left is a parent node, right is a child node.
The next l lines consist of instructions. P stands for operation I and it's followed by the label of the node. T stands for operation II and it's followed by the two labels of the nodes to be swapped.
The entire pattern can repeat.
The code:
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<stdio.h>
typedef unsigned int uint;
typedef struct Node {
size_t id; // identifier of the node
int data; // actual data
size_t num_parents; // actual number of parent nodes
size_t size_parents; // current maximum capacity of array of parent nodes
struct Node** parents; // all nodes that connect from "upstream"
size_t num_children; // actual number of child nodes
size_t size_children; // current maximum capacity of array of children nodes
struct Node** children; // all nodes that connect "downstream"
} Node;
Node** reallocate_node_array(Node** array, size_t* size) {
Node** new_array = realloc(array, sizeof(Node*) * (*size) * 2);
if (new_array == NULL) {
perror("realloc");
exit(1);
}
*size *= 2;
return new_array;
}
// The intention is to pass `num_children` or `num_parents` as `size` in order to decrease them
void remove_node(Node** array, size_t* size, size_t index) {
for (size_t i = index; i < *size - 1; i++) {
array[i] = array[i + 1];
}
(*size)--; // the decrement to either `num_children` or `num_parents`
}
void remove_parent(Node* node, size_t id) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < node->num_parents; i++) {
if (node->parents[i]->id == id) {
remove_node(node->parents, &node->num_parents, i);
}
}
}
void remove_child(Node* node, size_t id) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < node->num_children; i++) {
if (node->children[i]->id == id) {
remove_node(node->children, &node->num_children, i);
}
}
}
void add_parent(Node* node, Node* parent) {
if (node->num_parents >= node->size_parents) {
node->parents = reallocate_node_array(node->parents, &node->size_parents);
}
node->parents[node->num_parents++] = parent;
}
void add_child(Node* node, Node* child) {
if (node->num_children >= node->size_children) {
node->children = reallocate_node_array(node->children, &node->size_children);
}
node->children[node->num_children++] = child;
}
uint number_of_digits(int n) {
uint d = 0;
do { d++; n /= 10; } while (n != 0);
return d;
}
// return format: "{ parent1.id parent2.id ...} { id data } { child1.id child2.id ...}"
void print_node(Node node) {
printf("{ ");
for (size_t i = 0; i < node.num_parents; i++) {
printf("%zu ", node.parents[i]->id);
}
printf("} [ %zu %d ] { ", node.id, node.data);
for (size_t i = 0; i < node.num_children; i++) {
printf("%zu ", node.children[i]->id);
}
printf("}\n");
}
void switch_nodes(Node* n1, Node* n2, Node** array) {
uint temp_id = n1->id;
uint temp_data = n1->data;
n1->id = n2->id;
n1->data = n2->data;
n2->id = temp_id;
n2->data = temp_data;
Node* temp = array[n1->id];
array[n1->id] = array[n2->id];
array[n2->id] = temp;
}
int find_smallest_valued_parent(Node* node, uint depth) {
// has no parents
if (node->num_parents == 0 || node->parents == NULL) {
if (depth == 0) return -1; // there was no parent on first call (nothing to report)
else return node->data;
}
else {
depth++;
int minimum_value = node->parents[0]->data; // we're guaranteed 1 parent
for (size_t i = 0; i < node->num_parents; i++) {
int next_value = find_smallest_valued_parent(node->parents[i], depth);
if (node->parents[i]->data < next_value) next_value = node->parents[i]->data;
if (next_value < minimum_value) minimum_value = next_value;
}
return minimum_value;
}
}
void free_node_array(Node** array, size_t start, size_t end) {
for (size_t i = start; i < end; i++) {
free(array[i]);
}
free(array);
}
int main() {
char* file_name = "input_feodorv.txt";
FILE* data_file = fopen(file_name, "r");
if (data_file == NULL) {
printf("Error: invalid file %s", file_name);
return 1;
}
for (;;) {
size_t num_nodes, num_relationships, num_instructions;
if (fscanf(data_file, "%zu %zu %zu\n", &num_nodes, &num_relationships, &num_instructions) == EOF)
break;
Node** nodes = malloc((num_nodes + 1) * sizeof(Node*));
for (size_t i = 1; i <= num_nodes; i++) {
nodes[i] = malloc(sizeof(Node)); // WARNING Buffer overrun while writing to 'nodes': the writable size is '((num_nodes+1))*sizeof(Node *)' bytes, but '16' bytes might be written.
nodes[i]->id = i; // WARNING Reading invalid data from 'nodes': the readable size is '((num_nodes+1))*sizeof(Node *)' bytes, but '16' bytes may be read.
fscanf(data_file, "%u ", &nodes[i]->data);
nodes[i]->num_children = 0;
nodes[i]->size_children = 2;
nodes[i]->children = (Node**)malloc(2 * sizeof(Node*));
for (size_t j = 0; j < 2; j++) nodes[i]->children[j] = malloc(sizeof(Node));
nodes[i]->num_parents = 0;
nodes[i]->size_parents = 2;
nodes[i]->parents = (Node**)malloc(2 * sizeof(Node*));
for (size_t j = 0; j < 2; j++) nodes[i]->parents[j] = malloc(sizeof(Node));
}
for (size_t i = 0; i < num_relationships; i++) {
size_t parent_id, child_id;
fscanf(data_file, "%zu %zu\n", &parent_id, &child_id);
add_child(nodes[parent_id], nodes[child_id]);
add_parent(nodes[child_id], nodes[parent_id]);
}
for (size_t i = 0; i < num_instructions; i++) {
char instruction;
fscanf(data_file, "%c ", &instruction);
if (instruction == 'P') {
size_t id;
fscanf(data_file, "%zu\n", &id);
int minimum_value = find_smallest_valued_parent(nodes[id], 0);
if (minimum_value == -1) printf("*\n");
else printf("%u\n", minimum_value);
}
else {
size_t n1_id, n2_id;
fscanf(data_file, "%zu %zu\n", &n1_id, &n2_id);
switch_nodes(nodes[n1_id], nodes[n2_id], nodes);
}
}
/**/
for (size_t i = 1; i <= num_nodes; i++) {
free_node_array(nodes[i]->parents, 0, nodes[i]->size_parents);
free_node_array(nodes[i]->children, 0, nodes[i]->size_children);
}
free_node_array(nodes, 0, num_nodes);
/**/
}
}
There is a memory leak in your code. In the main() function, you are doing:
nodes[i]->children = (Node**)malloc(2 * sizeof(Node*));
for (size_t j = 0; j < 2; j++) nodes[i]->children[j] = malloc(sizeof(Node));
and
nodes[i]->parents = (Node**)malloc(2 * sizeof(Node*));
for (size_t j = 0; j < 2; j++) nodes[i]->parents[j] = malloc(sizeof(Node));
that mean, allocating memory to nodes[i]->children[j] and nodes[i]->parents[j] pointers.
In add_child() and add_parent() function, you are making them point to some other node resulting in loosing there allocated memory reference:
void add_parent(Node* node, Node* parent) {
.....
node->parents[node->num_parents++] = parent;
}
void add_child(Node* node, Node* child) {
.....
node->children[node->num_children++] = child;
}
You actually don't need to allocate memory to nodes[i]->children[j] and nodes[i]->parents[j] pointers in main() because these pointer are suppose to point to the existing nodes of the graph and you are already allocating memory to those nodes here in main():
nodes[i] = malloc(sizeof(Node));
nodes[i] is an element of array of all the nodes of the given graph and childrens and parents pointer should point to these nodes only.
Now coming to freeing these pointers:
The way you are freeing the nodes of graph is not correct. Look at free_node_array() function:
void free_node_array(Node** array, size_t start, size_t end) {
for (size_t i = start; i < end; i++) {
free(array[i]);
}
free(array);
}
and you are calling it in this way:
for (size_t i = 1; i <= num_nodes; i++) {
free_node_array(nodes[i]->parents, 0, nodes[i]->size_parents);
free_node_array(nodes[i]->children, 0, nodes[i]->size_children);
}
That mean, you are freeing the pointers pointed by array of pointers nodes[i]->parents and nodes[i]->children. The members of nodes[i]->parents and nodes[i]->children are pointers which are pointing to elements of nodes array. It is perfectly possible that a node can be a child 1 or more parents and a parent node can have more than 1 child. Now assume case where a child node is pointed by 2 parent nodes, say n1 and n2. When you call free_node_array() function and pass the first parent (n1), it will end you freeing that child node and when free_node_array() function is called to free the second parent (n2), it will try to free the node which is already freed while freeing n1.
So, this way of freeing the memory is not correct. The correct way to free the memory is, simply, free the elements of nodes array because it's the array which will contain all the nodes of given graph and parents and children pointers are supposed to point to these nodes only. No need to traverse the hierarchy of parent and child nodes. To free the graph appropriately, you should do:
Traverse through the nodes array and for each element of array:
Free the array of parents pointer (free (nodes[i]->parents).
Free the array of children pointer (free (nodes[i]->children).
Free that element of nodes array (free (nodes[i]).
Once, this is done then free the nodes array - free (nodes).

Undefined behavior when deleting an element from dynamic array of structs

I have an n sized array of structs dynamically allocated, and each position of the array is an array too, with different sizes for each position (an array of arrays).
I created a function to delete a given array[index] but I'm facing some undefined behavior, for example:
If the array is of size 3, if I delete array[0],I can't access array[1]. This happens with other combinations of indexes too. The only way it works flawlessly is when I delete from end to start.
Here is the code I have:
Structures:
typedef struct point{
char id[5];
char type[5];
char color[10];
int x;
int y;
} Point;
typedef struct {
char lineID[5];
int nPoints;
Point *pt;
}railData;
typedef struct railway {
railData data;
}railway;
This is how the array was created:
headRail = (railway**)calloc(lineNum,sizeof(railway*));
And each Rail:
headRail[i] = (railway*)calloc(pointsNum,sizeof(railway));
These are the functions to delete a rail:
railway **delRail(railway **headRail, int j)
{
int nPts = 0;
if (!headRail)
{
puts(ERRORS[NULLPOINTER]);
return NULL;
}
// Number of rail points on jth rail
nPts = headRail[j]->data.nPoints;
// Free each rail point from jth rail
for (int i = 0; i < nPts; ++i)
{
free(headRail[j][i].data.pt);
}
// Free allocated memory for jth rail
free(headRail[j]);
return headRail;
}
And this is where I call the previous function:
railway **removeRail(railway **headRail)
{
char userID[20];
int index = 0;
// Quit if no rails
if (!headRail)
{
backToMenu("No rails available!");
return NULL;
}
// Get user input
getString("\nRail ID: ",userID,MINLEN,MAXLEN); // MINLEN = 2 MAXLEN = 4
// get index of the asked rail
getRailIndex(headRail,userID,&index);
if (index != NOTFOUND)
{
headRail = delRail(headRail, index);
// Update number of rails in the array (global var)
NUMOFRAILS--;
backToMenu("Rail deleted!\n");
}
else
backToMenu("Rail not found!");
return headRail;
}
So my question is how can I modify my code so that when position i is eliminated, all other indexes are shifted left and the last position, which would be empty, is discarded (something like realloc but for shrinking)
Is what I'm asking doable without changing the array's structure?
When removing element i, do memmove all the data from i+1 to i to the end of the array and then realloc with the size decremented by 1.
Note that arrays in C do not track their size in any way, so you need to pass the size by an external way.
Your data abstraction is strange. I would expect that headRail[j][0].data.nPoints is used to store the number of points inside the headRail[j][0].data structure, yet there you store the count of headRails in the j row headRail[j][<this count>]. I would advise to rewrite the abstraction, have one "object" for the railway and another for hadling two dimensional arrays of railways with dynamic sizes in all directions.
Like:
railway **delRail(railway **headRail, int j)
{
...
// this is strange, it's equal to
// nPts = headRail[j][0].data.nPoints;
// dunno if you mean that,
// or if [j][0].data.nPoints refers to the size of
// headRail[j][0].data.pt or to the size of the whole array
size_t nPts = headRail[j]->data.nPoints;
for (size_t i = 0; i < nPts; ++i) {
free(headRail[j][i].data.pt);
}
free(headRail[j]);
// note that arrays in C does not know how many elements are there in the array
// so you typically pass that along the arguments, like
// railway **delRail(railway **headRail, size_t railcount, int j);
size_t headRailCount = lineNum; // some external knowledge of the size
memmove(&headRail[j], &headRail[j + 1], (headRailCount - j - 1) * sizeof(*headRail));
void *pnt = realloc(headRail, (headRailCount - 1) * sizeof(*headRail));
if (pnt == NULL) return NULL; // that would be strange
headRail = pnt; // note that the previous headRail is no longer valid
--lineNum; // decrement that object where you store the size of the array
return headRail;
}
What about some encapsulation and more structs instead of 2d array? 2d arrays are really a bit of pain for C, what about:
typedef struct {
// stores a single row of rail datas
struct railData_row_s {
// stores a pointer to an array of rail datas
railData *data;
// stores the count of how many datas of rails are stored here
size_t datacnt;
// stores a pointer to an array of rows of rail datas
} *raildatas;
// stores the size of the pointer of rows of rail datas
size_t raildatascnt;
} railway;
The count of mallocs will stay the same, but thinking about data will get simpler. And each pointer that points to an array of data has it's own size tracking variable. An allocation might look like this:
railway *rail_new(size_t lineNum, size_t pointsNum) {
railway *r = calloc(1, sizeof(*r));
if (!r) { return NULL; }
// allocate the memory for rows of raildata
r->raildatascnt = lineNum;
r->raildatas = calloc(r->raildatascnt, sizeof(*r->raildatas));
if (!t->raildatas) { /* error hadnling */ free(r); abort(); }
// for each row of raildata
for (size_t i = 0; i < r->raildatascnt; ++i) {
struct railData_row_s * const row = &r->raildatas[i];
// allocate the memory for the column of raildata
// hah, looks similar to the above?
row->datacnt = pointsNum;
row->data = calloc(row->datacnt, sizeof(*row->data));
if (!row->data) { /* error ahdnling */ abort(); }
}
return r;
}

C: insert element in empty heap

i'm supposed to write a code, that inserts numbers from stdin into an at first empty max-heap. my code just doesn't get the order of elements right, i found out, that it doesnt even enter the while loop before the third number. Anybody willing to help? Thanks in advance!
int heap_insert(heap* h, int key) {
if (h->size==MAX_HEAP_SIZE){
return(-1);
}
h->size=h->size+1;
int i=h->size-1;
h->array[i]=key;
int parent=(i-1)/2;
while (i>1 && h->array[parent]< key) {
h->array[i]= h->array[parent];
i = parent;
h->array[i]=key;
}
return(0);
}
it doesnt even enter the while loop before the third number
That part can be answered. Your loop won't go until i is 2 or greater...
while (i > 1 && h->array[parent]< key) {
^^^^^
Here's the code that sets i.
h->size = h->size+1;
int i = h->size-1;
That code is easier to understand like so:
int i = h->size;
h->size++;
First time through, i will be 0 (assuming h->size is initialized to 0, you didn't show your heap init code). Second time it will be 1. Third time it will be 2 and then finally the loop can run.
I'm guessing you want i >= 1 in the while loop so it will go on the second call.
As for why it's not working, the primary problem is you're forgetting to change parent in the loop.
/* i and parent initialized */
int i=h->size-1;
...
int parent=(i-1)/2;
while (i>1 && h->array[parent]< key) {
h->array[i]= h->array[parent];
/* i is changed, but where's parent? */
i = parent;
h->array[i]=key;
}
Here's what it should look like. I've changed i, which should only be used in loop indexes, to the more descriptive new.
/* new and parent initialized */
int new = h->size;
...
int parent = (new-1)/2;
while( new != 0 && h->array[parent] < key ) {
h->array[new] = h->array[parent];
h->array[parent] = key;
/* new AND parent changed */
new = parent;
parent = (new-1)/2;
}
Here's the complete code, plus I made the heap size dynamic because fixed size structures are a crutch best avoided.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct {
int size;
int max_size;
int *array;
} heap;
#define INIT_HEAP_SIZE 4
static heap *heap_init() {
heap *h = calloc(1, sizeof(heap));
h->max_size = INIT_HEAP_SIZE;
h->array = calloc(h->max_size, sizeof(int));
return h;
}
static void heap_destroy(heap *h) {
free(h->array);
free(h);
}
static void heap_grow(heap *h) {
h->max_size *= 2;
h->array = realloc( h->array, h->max_size * sizeof(int) );
}
static void heap_insert(heap* h, int key) {
if (h->size >= h->max_size) {
heap_grow(h);
}
int new = h->size;
h->size++;
h->array[new] = key;
int parent = (new-1)/2;
while( new != 0 && h->array[parent] < key ) {
h->array[new] = h->array[parent];
h->array[parent] = key;
new = parent;
parent = (new-1)/2;
}
return;
}
int main(void) {
heap *h = heap_init();
heap_insert(h, 23);
heap_insert(h, 11);
heap_insert(h, 42);
heap_insert(h, 5);
heap_insert(h, 99);
for( int i = 0; i < h->size; i++ ) {
printf("%d: %d\n", i, h->array[i]);
}
heap_destroy(h);
}
It doesn't enter the while loop before the 3rd number because your i is not greater than 1 until the 3rd number is entered. At 1st number i = 0, then 1 then 2.
For the loop, here's my advice on figuring out the problem: Suppose you enter the values 3, 5, 7. As soon as 5 is entered, you need a swap. 5 should become the new root, and 3 should be a child. (So maxheap property is kept) Then, when 7 is entered, another swap is in order. This time with 5. 7 becomes root, 3 and 5 are children. What does this tell you about the indexes? What happens if we insert 10, 16, 1 as well? More swaps? If you answer these properly the while loop should be easy to solve. (Hint: You need to keep swapping by starting from the child, and move to next parent until everything is in order)

Resources