I'm trying to implement a linked-list data structure which each node has a identifier key, some data of variable length (malloc), and a pointer to the next node. Now I want to have 3 functions which respectively: sets a new node to the front of the list, prints the values of a given node using identifier key, and deletes a given node.
The struct I have for the node is as follows:
struct node {
char key[5];
int* data;
node* next;
};
struct node* headNode = NULL;
I have questions regarding each of functions. I will list the function codes I have and ask questions regarding that specific function below:
The code for my set function:
void command_set (char key[], int val[], int numOfVal){
struct node* temp = (node*)malloc(sizeof(node));
strcpy(temp->key, key);
temp->data = (int*)malloc(numOfVal*sizeof(int));
*(temp->data) = *(val);
temp->next = entry_head;
entry_head = temp;
return;
}
Now I have one question regarding this function:
1) Is my method of storing the data valid? i.e. "temp->data = (int*)malloc(numOfValuessizeof(int));" + "(temp->data) = *(val);". What I'm trying to do is dynamically allocate some memory, then store the given values as my node's data in that memory.
The code for my print function:
void printNode (char key[], int numOfVal){
int i;
struct node *currentNode = headNode;
while(currentNode->next!=NULL){
if(!strcmp(currentNode->key,key) ){
for(i=0; i<numOfVal; i++){
printf("%d ",*((currentNode->data)+i));
}
return;
}
currentNode = currentNode->next;
}
I have a one question regarding this function:
2) The data of a node is a list of integers, so does my way of printing out each integer actually work? i.e. "*((currentNode->data)+i)". What I'm trying to do is by using pointer arithmetic I print all the ints stored under data.
The code for my delete function:
void deleteNode (char key[]){
struct node *currentNode = headNode;
struct node *prevNode = headNode;
while(currentNode->next!=NULL){
if(!strcmp(currentNode->key,key) ){
prevNode->next = currentNode->next;
free(currentNode->data);
free(currentNode->next);
free(currentNode);
return;
}
prevNode = currentNode;
currentNode = currentNode->next;
}
I have two questions regarding this function:
3) Am I "deleting" the nodes properly? By using free(). Is this the way to do it?
4) Is this how you link up nodes after deletion? By setting the next pointer to another node.
Please assume that malloc will not return NULL for simplicity. Also note that I have simplified my actual code, else there is way too much to post, so there might be slight errors. You may also assum that the while loops will always work (i.e. there will not be a case where (currentNode->next==NULL). The main point of this post are my questions regarding whether the method of doing something is correct.
An example of the program would be:
-set ex1 2 3 4 5
-get ex1
2 3 4 5
-set ab 32 112
-get ab
32 112
Thanks in advance.
strcpy(temp->key, key);
For the the purpose of your program, this is probably ok, but you should use strncpy(temp->key,key,5) to be safe. Or at least check the length of key to make sure it fits.
*(temp->data) = *(val);
This only sets the first index in the array. You should use memcpy here.
memcpy (temp->data,val, sizeof (int) * numOfVal);
Your print function prints the first element that doesn't match. Did you mean to do the opposite?
Your delete function does the thing. It finds the first node that doesn't match.
You also don't want to free currentNode->next;
Related
I am trying to understand how the code below for creating a singly linked list works using a double pointer.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct Node {
int data;
struct Node* next;
};
void push(struct Node** headRef, int data) {
struct Node* newNode = (struct Node*)malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
newNode->data = data;
newNode->next = *headRef;
*headRef = newNode;
}
//Function to implement linked list from a given set of keys using local references
struct Node* constructList(int keys[], int n) {
struct Node *head = NULL;
struct Node **lastPtrRef = &head;
int i, j;
for(i = 0; i < n; i++) {
push(lastPtrRef, keys[i]);
lastPtrRef = &((*lastPtrRef)->next); //this line
if((*lastPtrRef) == NULL) {
printf("YES\n");
}
}
return head;
}
int main() {
int keys[] = {1, 2, 3, 4};
int n = sizeof(keys)/sizeof(keys[0]);
//points to the head node of the linked list
struct Node* head = NULL;
head = constructList(keys, n); //construct the linked list
struct Node *temp = head;
while(temp != NULL) { //print the linked list
printf(" %d -> ", temp->data);
temp = temp->next;
}
}
I understand the purpose of using the double pointer in the function push(), it allows you to change what the pointer headRef is pointing to inside the function. However in the function constructList(), I don't understand how the following line works:
lastPtrRef = &((*lastPtrRef)->next);
Initially lastPtrRef would be pointing to head which points to NULL. In the first call to push(), within the for loop in constructList(), the value that head points to is changed (it points to the new node containing the value 1). So after the first call to push(), lastPtrRef will be pointing to head which points to a node with the value of 1. However, afterwards the following line is executed:
lastPtrRef = &((*lastPtrRef)->next);
Whereby lastPtrRef is given the address of whatever is pointed to by the next member of the newly added node. In this case, head->next is NULL.
I am not really sure what the purpose of changing lastPtrRef after the call to push(). If you want to build a linked list, don't you want lastPtrRef to have the address of the pointer which points to the node containing 1, since you want to push the next node (which will containing 2) onto the head of the list (which is 1)?
In the second call to push() in the for loop in constructList, we're passing in lastPtrRef which points to head->next (NULL) and the value 2. In push() the new node is created, containing the value 2, and newNode->next points to head->next which is NULL. headRef in push gets changed so that it points to newNode (which contains 2).
Maybe I'm understanding the code wrong, but it seems that by changing what lastPtrRef points to, the node containing 1 is getting disregarded. I don't see how the linked list is created if we change the address lastPtrRef holds.
I would really appreciate any insights as to how this code works. Thank you.
This uses a technique called forward-chaining, and I believe you already understand that (using a pointer-to-pointer to forward-chain a linked list construction).
This implementation is made confusing by the simple fact that the push function seems like it would be designed to stuff items on the head of a list, but in this example, it's stuffing them on the tail. So how does it do it?
The part that is important to understand is this seemingly trivial little statement in push:
newNode->next = *headRef
That may not seem important, but I assure you it is. The function push, in this case, does grave injustice to what this function really does. In reality it is more of a generic insert. Some fact about that function
It accepts a pointer-to-pointer headRef as an argument, as well as some data to put in to the linked list being managed.
After allocating a new node and saving the data within, it sets the new node's next pointer to whatever value is currently stored in the dereferenced headRef pointer-to-pointer (so.. a pointer) That's what the line I mentioned above accomplishes.
It then stores the new node's address at the same place it just pulled the prior address from; i.e. *headRef
Interestingly, it has no return value (it is void) further making this somewhat confusing. Turns out it doesn't need one.
Upon returning to the caller, at first nothing may seem to have changed. lastPtrRef still points to some pointer (in fact the same pointer as before; it must, since it was passed by value to the function). But now that pointer points to the new node just allocated. Further, that new node's next pointer points to whatever was in *lastPtrRef before the function call (i.e. whatever value was in the pointer pointed to by lastPtrRef before the function call).
That's important. That is what that line of code enforces, That means if you invoke this with lastPtrRef addressing a pointer pointing to NULL (such as head on initial loop entry), that pointer will receive the new node, and the new node's next pointer will be NULL. If you then change the address in lastPtrRef to point to the next pointer of the last-inserted node (which points to NULL; we just covered that), and repeat the process, it will hang another node there, setting that node's next pointer to NULL, etc. With each iteration, lastPtrRef addresses the last-node's next pointer, which is always NULL.
That's how push is being used to construct a forward linked list. One final thought. What would you get for a linked list if you had this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct Node
{
int data;
struct Node* next;
};
void push(struct Node** headRef, int data)
{
struct Node* newNode = (struct Node*)malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
newNode->data = data;
newNode->next = *headRef;
*headRef = newNode;
}
int main()
{
//points to the head node of the linked list
struct Node* head = NULL;
push(&head, 1);
push(&head->next, 2);
push(&head->next, 3);
for (struct Node const *p = head; p; p = p->next)
printf("%p ==> %d\n", p, p->data);
}
This seemingly innocent example amplifies why I said push is more of a generic insert than anything else. This just populates the initial head node.
push(&head, 1);
Then this appends to that node by using the address of the new node's next pointer as the first argument, similar to what your constructList is doing, but without the lastPtrRef variable (we don't need it here):
push(&head->next, 2);
But then this:
push(&head->next, 3);
Hmmm. Same pointer address as the prior call, so what will it do? Hint: remember what that newNode->next = *headRef line does (I droned on about it forever; I hope something stuck).
The output of the program above is this (obviously the actual address values will be different, dependent to your instance and implementation):
0x100705950 ==> 1
0x10073da90 ==> 3
0x100740b90 ==> 2
Hope that helps.
I have just started learning about dynamic structures in C.
The first type that I'm trying to learn is the ordered list. I have created a few functions - namely, adding nodes to the beginning of the list and printing elements in the list, but then I decided to write a function that allows me to add elements to the end of the list. My function looks like this:
typedef struct Node* Node;
void add_end(Node *head, int value) {
Node new;
new = malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
new -> value = value;
new -> next = NULL;
if(*head == NULL) {
*head = new;
}
else {
Node help = *head;
while(help->next != NULL) {
help = help->next;
}
help->next = new;
}
}
Some clarification: My structure consists of two fields - value (int) and next (pointer to the next node).
Thus, my questions are:
1) Notice my substitution using the variable called "help" - when I tried to do this without it,namely writing *head wherever help appears now, and this function did not work properly - it only added as much as two elements. For example, if I pushed 1, 3, 5, 7 to the list, only 5 and 7 would be added. Why was this so? I really can't see any reasonable explanation.
2) At first I tried passing an argument of the type Node to the function (Not Node* as I'm doing now) and the function did not put anything to the list. Once again, I can't see the difference between writing using the type Node and writing the variable without the asterisk. Could you explain it to me in layman terms?
I know that my question may have a trivial answer, but please, be understanding - this is my first encounter with pointers and they may be quite complex to comprehend.
To try to answer your two questions:
Because you typedefed Node as typedef struct Node* Node; what you are passing into add_end as the first parameter is a double pointer to struct Node (like struct Node**). You then dereference it in your while loop with Node help = *head; This means that the value of the actual pointer is going to change. If you didn't have the help pointer, you would then keep moving head until you get to the end of the list. This means that you would only have two elements in the list -- the head itself and its next element.
The answer to this has to do with your typedef again. When you pass Node, with your typedef, you are only passing a single pointer to struct Node representing head, which means that dereferencing it will not give you the pointer to head, but the structure itself, which means that neither your if or else statements will work as intended, as your intent is to compare pointers.
Your function type should probably be:
void add_end(Node **head, int value) {
^
because head is a pointer to Node
Like:
void add_end(Node **head, int value) {
Node* new; // NOTICE Node*
new = malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
// TODO - add check for new being NULL
new -> value = value;
new -> next = NULL;
if(*head == NULL) {
*head = new;
}
else {
Node help = *head;
while(help->next != NULL) {
help = help->next;
}
help->next = new;
}
}
and call it like:
Node* head = NULL;
add_end(&head, 42);
add_end(&head, 42);
add_end(&head, 42);
I'm trying to create a linked list without using structures in C.
I want to be able to store an int variable on every node and a pointer to the next node, add unlimited numbers to the list, remove the first item, print all of the elements, etc.
I was thinking that every node of type int** should have 2 pointers of type int*.
the first one will point to an int address and the second will point to NULL.
Then, if I like to add a number to the list, I'll use the last pointer to point to a new allocated node of type int** and so on.
I'm having trouble writing the proper code for this though, and can't seem to reach to the actual int values. See the image below:
You can achieve this by allocating two uintptr_t each time: the first allocated memory space will be responsible for storing the value of the integer and the second one will be pointing to the next memory location.
uintptr_t nodeFirst = malloc(2 * sizeof(uintptr_t));
...
...
uintptr_t nodeNext = malloc(2 * sizeof(uintptr_t));
....
....
*nodeFirst = someIntValue;
*(nodeFirst + 1) = nodeNext;
...
The fact is, my solution above is still using the struct analogy, but w/o the struct keyword.
Here is a complete solution of a LinkedList managed as int ** pointers.
Step 1 - the addNode() function to add one node to the int **head.
int **addNode(int **head, int ival)
{
int **node = malloc(2 * sizeof(int *));
// don't forget to alloc memory to store the int value
node[0] = malloc(sizeof(int));
*(node[0]) = ival;
// next is pointing to NULL
node[1] = NULL;
if (head == NULL) {
// first node to be added
head = node;
}
else {
int **temp;
temp = head;
// temp[1] is the next
while (temp[1]!=NULL) {
// cast needed to go to the next node
temp = (int **)temp[1];
}
// cast needed to store the next node
temp[1] = (int *)node;
}
return (head);
}
Step 2 - a function display() to explore the current linkedlist.
void display(int **head)
{
int **temp;
int i = 0;
temp = head;
printf("display:\n");
while (temp!=NULL) {
// temp[0] is pointing to the ivalue
printf("node[%d]=%d\n",i++,*(temp[0]));
temp = (int **)temp[1];
}
printf("\n");
}
Step 3 - the popNode() function to remove the first node.
int **popNode(int **head)
{
int **temp;
if (head!=NULL) {
temp = (int **)head[1];
// don't forget to free ivalue
free(head[0]);
// then free the next pointer
free(head[1]);
head = temp;
}
return (head);
}
Step 4 - then an example of main() function using the linkedlist.
int main()
{
int **head = NULL;
head = addNode(head,111);
head = addNode(head,222);
head = addNode(head,333);
display(head);
// display:
// node[0]=111
// node[1]=222
// node[2]=333
head = popNode(head);
display(head);
// display:
// node[0]=222
// node[1]=333
while ((head = popNode(head))!=NULL);
display(head);
// display:
return (0);
}
Allocate two arrays, both of which are stored as pointers. In C, they can be the pointers you get back from calloc(). The first holds your node data. We can call it nodes. The second is an array of pointers (or integral offsets). We can call it nexts. Whenever you update the list, update nodes so that each nexts[i] links to the next node after the one that contains nodes[i], or an invalid value such as NULL or -1 if it is the tail. For a double-linked list, you’d need befores or to use the XOR trick. You’ll need a head pointer and some kind of indicator of which elements in your pool are unallocated, which could be something simple like a first free index, or something more complicated like a bitfield.
You would still need to wrap all this in a structure to get more than one linked list in your program, but that does give you one linked list using no data structure other than pointers.
This challenge is crazy, but a structure of arrays isn’t, and you might see a graph or a list of vertices stored in a somewhat similar way. You can allocate or deallocate your node pool all at once instead of in small chunks, it could be more efficient to use 32-bit offsets instead of 64-bit next pointers, and contiguous storage gets you locality of reference.
I'm trying to just reverse a singly linked list, but with a bit of a twist. Rather than having the pointer to the next node be the actual next node, it points to the pointer in that next node.
struct _Node
{
union
{
int n;
char c;
} val;
void *ptr; /* points to ptr variable in next node, not beginning */
int var;
};
typedef struct _Node Node;
I know how to reverse a normal singly linked list and I think I have the general idea of how to go about solving this one, but I'm getting a segfault when I'm trying to access head->ptrand I don't know why.
Node *reverse(Node *head)
{
Node * temp;
Node * prev = NULL;
while(head != NULL)
{
temp = head->ptr + 4; /* add 4 to pass union and get beginning of next node */
head->ptr = prev;
prev = head;
head = temp;
}
return prev;
}
Even if I try and access head->ptr without adding 4, I get a segfault.
The driver that I have for this code is only an object file, so I can't see how things are being called or anything of the sort. I'm either missing something blatantly obvious or there is an issue in the driver.
First, I'll show you a major problem in your code:
while (head) // is shorter than while(head != NULL)
{
// Where does the 4 come from?
// And even if: You have to substract it.
// so, definitively a bug:
// temp = head->ptr + 4; /* add 4 to pass union and get beginning of next node */
size_t offset_ptr = (char*)head->ptr - (char*)head;
// the line above should be moved out of the while loop.
temp = head->ptr - offset_ptr;
Anyways, your algorithm probably won't work as written. If you want to reverse stuff, you are gonna have to work backwards (which is non-trivial in single linked lists). There are two options:
count the elements, allocate an array, remember the pointers in that array and then reassign the next pointers.
create a temporary double linked list (actually you only need another single reversely linked list, because both lists together form a double linked list). Then walk again to copy the next pointer from your temporary list to the old list. Remember to free the temporary list prior to returning.
I tried your code and did some tweaking, well in my opinion your code had some logical error. Your pointers were overwritten again and again (jumping from one node to another and back: 1->2 , 2->1) which were leading to suspected memory leaks. Here, a working version of your code...
Node *reverse(Node *head)
{
Node *temp = 0;
//Re-ordering of your assignment statements
while (head) //No need for explicit head != NULL
{
//Here this line ensures that pointers are not overwritten
Node *next = (Node *)head->ptr; //Type casting from void * to Node *
head->ptr = temp;
temp = head;
head = next;
}
return temp;
}
Good day guys, im new here to C and am trying to learn linked lists. I been trying to swap 2 nodes from within a linked list but so far have been having trouble getting it to work. The code I been trying to use causes an endless circular loop, but I don't think it is because of the if or while statement.
Take a look? Any pointers here? Help would be greatly appreciated.
Basically, the code uses a user input to search for a node based on the data inside, then it should swap the node with the data inside with the next node. Been at this for 3 hours, can anybody help? Thanks!
/conductor is the name im using of the pointer for the current node/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct node {
int x;
struct node *next;
struct node *prev;
};
struct node *root;
struct node *conductor;
struct node *counter;
struct node *newnode;
struct node *back;
struct node *swapper;
struct node *swappee;
struct node *blanker;
int add = 0;
int initialization = 0;
int query = 0;
int swap ()
{
printf("enter data to search from within the nodes: ");
fflush(stdin);
scanf("%d", &query);
conductor = root;
while ( conductor->next != 0)
{
if(conductor->x == query)
{
printf("\n%d\n", query);
swapper = conductor;
swappee = conductor->prev;
conductor = swappee;
conductor->next = swapper;
break;
}
else
{
conductor = conductor->next;
}
}
mainMenu ();
}
A double linked list (like the one you have) is basically an array of node, each node pointing to its neighbors. Let's say we have nodes -A-B-C-D- (A-B means that A points to B and B points to A). Let's say you want to swap B and C. You have to make 4 changes:
Make A point to C
Make C point to B and A
Make B point to D and B
make D point to B
You make only the second and the third change. So, you need to add A->next = B and D->prev=C. I hope it is clear enough.
Also, you should not fflush input streams.
If you want to swap the data:
if (conductor->x == query) {
int temp = conductor->x;
if (conductor->next)
conductor->x = conductor->next->x;
conductor->next->x = temp;
}
}
Typically that is what you will want to do. If you have a structure with several members instead of the 1 int, swapping the pointers may seem less messy in theory, but it isn't, primarily due to the fact that you must test for existence of a next/previous node so often. In truth, you'd probably want a pointer to a separate structure in such a case.
Given three nodes — previous, current, and next, pointing to current->prev, current, and current->next respectively — you must update at most 6 pointers:
next->prev = previous
previous->next = next
current->prev = next
current->next = next->next
next->next = current
current->next->prev = current
Step 2 is not necessary if previous is NULL.
Step 7 is unnecessary if current->next is NULL.
The entire thing is unnecessary if next is NULL.
If you want to swap with the previous node instead of the next, exchange any instance of the variable previous with the variable next and vice-versa as well as exchanging any instance of ->prev with ->next and vice-versa.
Overall, this requires a fair bit of branching code, which can be slow. This is why it is usually better to swap the data rather than messing with the pointers. It gets even messier when you want to swap with the previous node and you only have a singly-linked list that points to the next node because you must store yet another pointer for the equivalent of previous->prev, assuming previous exists.