C - Creating node with multiple children by function - segmentation fault - c

I want to create tree with multiple children and create every node with a function. Here is my structure for node:
typedef struct node {
char *string; // Name of the node
int number_of_children;
struct node *children[];
} node;
And here is my function to create new node (with four children):
node *add_node(char *string, node *left, node *middle_left, node *middle_right, node *right) {
node *p;
if ((p = malloc(sizeof(node))) == NULL) yyerror("Memory error");
p->string = strdup(string);
p->children[p->number_of_children] = left;
p->children[p->number_of_children + 1] = middle_left;
p->children[p->number_of_children + 2] = middle_right;
p->children[p->number_of_children + 3] = right;
p->number_of_children = 4;
return p;
}
When I run this function value under p->string is changed to some garbage. When I wanted to set fixed number of children (in the structure I changed struct node *children[] to struct node *children[4]) I get segmentation fault. Do you have any ideas?

The way you define your struct, you must know how many children you can have beforehand, because you have to allocate the memory for the last member explicitly:
node *p = malloc(sizeof(node) + nchildren * sizeof(node));
You could reallocate to accomodate more nodes later, but this isn't a feasible approach here, because the handle to the reallocated memory might change, which will break the tree connectivity.
There are better approaches to have nodes with a varying number of children, for example:
Settle on a fixed maximum number of children, maybe 4, and make the member array children explicitly 4 elements long. Keep a number that tells you how many children are valid.
Make the list of children a dynamically allocated array that you can reallocate later. This means you have a two-level allocation: First thze node proper, then a list of its children.
Keep a linked list of child nodes. Come to think of it, you could rearrange the tree so that each node has a child for its oldest child node and a sibling node fo the next oldest sibling of each node.
I'm not sure what you want to do exactly, but the first approach seems to be the simplest for your concerns.
Your code has several other errors:
You should only allocate memory when you create a node. Obviously, you already pass in valid node handles to your function. These nodes have already memory allocated to them or they are NULL. The following:
p = malloc(sizeof(*p));
p = pref;
will allocate memory and immediately lose the only handle to that memory, which is a memory leak. You don't need to allocate here, just say p = pref.
The memory allocated with malloc isn't initialised; it contains garbage. Initialise all struct members before you use them. Alternatively, consider using calloc, which allocates and zeroes out the memory.
Combined assignments and checks as in if ((p = malloc(sizeof(node))) == NULL) are valid, but complicated to read. In my opinion, they are better separated into assignment and subsequent check. (After all, it just saves you typing p twice at the cost of some extra parantheses.)
An example where you pass in a variable number of chilödren by array might look like this:
typedef struct node {
char *string;
size_t number_of_children;
struct node *children[4];
} node;
node *add_node(char *string, node *child[], size_t n)
{
node *p = malloc(sizeof(*p));
size_t i;
if (p == NULL) yyerror("Memory error");
p->string = strdup(string);
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) p->children[i] = child[i];
p->number_of_children = n;
return p;
}

Related

Freeing the temp node when adding to a linkedlist

I have a function called addMod that, when called, adds a node to a certain index of an array of Module struct LinkedLists called modules contained within a System struct. A Module struct has a string field, two int fields, and a pointer to the next Module, the first three fields being initialized according to arguments provided in addMod. addMod roughly looks like this:
int addMod(System *system, const char *text, int num1, int num2, int index) {
Module *temp = malloc(sizeof(Module));
Module *current;
temp->next = NULL;
if ([any of the constructors are invalid]) return 0;
temp->text = malloc(strlen(text)+1);
strcpy(temp->text, text);
temp->num1 = num1; temp->num2 = num2;
if (!system->modules[index]) {
system->modules[index] = temp; //If there are no modules in the LinkedList at the given index, makes the head = temp.
}
else {
if (system->compare(temp, system->modules[index]) <= 0) { //compare is a func pointer field of system that compares two Modules to see in what order they should be. Here, we check if temp should become the head of modules[index].
temp->next = system->modules[index]; //Assigns the current head as the module following temp.
system->modules[index] = temp; //Makes temp the current head.
}
else {
current = system->modules[index];
while (current->next && system->compare(temp, current->next) > 0) { //While current isn't the last node in the LinkedList and temp comes after the node after current
current = current->next;
}
temp->next = current->next; //Adds temp in between current and current->next.
current->next = temp;
}
}
return 1;
}
All of the above works as expected, except when printing the contents of system, the console indicates there's a memory leak that I'm assuming is because I fail to properly free temp based on what valgrind tells me. My problem is not knowing where to free it- it seems anywhere I put it causes a segfault after printing the contents. From my understanding, I have to make sure that no other variables are depending upon the value being held by temp, but I can't seem to find a way to do that considering every possible ending of my if statement leads to assigning temp to a node within modules. Putting free(temp) between the logic and return 1 also yields a segfault, I'm assuming because I often malloc temp again when calling addMod multiple times in succession.
In summary, to add a new node to a LinkedList that may or may not be populated, in which this new node may be inserted in any arbitrary position in the LinkedList, I have to allocate memory to a temporary node so that I can insert it later. Where do I free this allocated memory once I have successfully inserted the node?
Assuming your management of a System instance is sound (a big assumption, since I cannot see that code), you have giant hole in the memory allocation of temp with a subsequent hard return 0 in the condition where the "constructor" check fails. More to the point:
Module *temp = malloc(sizeof(Module)); // memory allocated here...
Module *current;
temp->next = NULL;
if ([any of the constructors are invalid])
return 0; // and leaked here.
It may be as simple as swapping the check around. Obviously other code that is supposed to free the dynamic allocations should be considered and evaluated as well.
A Simpler Approach
The node addition code is complicated and it need not be. In the end all you should really care about is finding the place where your new node resides.
If the slot in the table is empty, its the first node in that list.
IF the slot in the table is NOT empty, find the sorted location and insert it there.
Both of those can be accomplished with a single while-loop by using a pointer-to-pointer, where said entity hold the address of the pointer that will hold the new node in either of the cases above, and as a bonus, surgical insertion is literally two assignments.
It's done like this. Note that most of this code is just making the Module object safely. The actual insertion is only a single while-loop and some pointer assignments. It assumes the table in System initially contains NULL entries:
int addMod(System *system, const char *text, int num1, int num2, int index)
{
// allocate new node here
Module *temp = malloc(sizeof *temp);
if (temp == NULL)
{
perror("Failed to allocate new Module");
return 0;
}
size_t len = strlen(text);
temp->text = malloc(len + 1);
if (temp->text == NULL)
{
perror("Failed to allocate module name");
free(temp);
return 0;
}
// finish copying member data
memcpy(temp->text, text, len);
temp->text[len] = 0;
temp->num1 = num1;
temp->num2 = num2;
// now find where it belongs, and set next appropriately
Module **pp = system->modules + index;
while (*pp && system->compare(temp, *pp) <= 0)
pp = &(*pp)->next;
temp->next = *pp;
*pp = temp;
return 1;
}
Understand this is from deriving what I think your System type looks like, as it was never presented:
typedef struct System
{
Module *modules[MAX_MODULES];
int (*compare)(const Module* lhs, const Module *rhs);
} System;
I'm fairly confident it is similar to this. Of course, you'll have to adapt if it isn't. I suggest you review this and step through it in a debugger. There is no substitute for watching it live.
Best of luck.

How can a Linked List be implemented using only pointers (w/o structures)?

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.

Why use dynamic memory allocation(i.e. malloc()) when implementing linked list in c?

Okay this question may sound stupid to the amateur programmers . But seriously this is bothering me and a solemn answer to this doubt of mine is welcomed. I have just started to take my first ever course in data structures. And what is bothering me is this:
Assuming C is used,
//Implementing a node
struct Node
{
int data;
struct *Node;
};
Now while creating a node why do we use the dynamic memory allocation technique where we use malloc(). Can't we just create a variable of type ' Struct Node '.
i.e. something like:
struct Node N1;
//First node - actually second where !st Node is assumed to be Head.
struct Node *Head = &N1;
struct Node N2;
N2.(*Node) = &N1;
Well some parts of my code may be incorrect because I am only a beginner and not well versed with C. But by know you may have understood what I basically mean. Why don't we create variables of type Node of an Array of type Node to allocate memory t new nodes why get into the complexity of dynamic memory allocation?
First off, you have an error in how you declare your struct. struct * by itself does not denote a type. You have to give the full type name:
struct Node
{
int data;
struct Node *Node;
};
You can certainly use local variables as above to make a linked list, however that limits you to a fixed number of list elements, i.e. the ones you explicitly declare. That would also mean you can't create a list in a function because those variables would go out of scope.
For example, if you did this:
struct Node *getList()
{
struct Node head, node1, node2, node3;
head.Node = &node1;
node1.Node = &node2;
node2.Node = &node3;
node3.Node = NULL;
return &head;
}
Your list would be restricted to 4 elements. What of you needed thousands of them? Also, by returning the address of local variables, they go out of scope when the function returns and thus accessing them results in undefined behavior.
By dynamically allocating each node, you're only limited by your available memory.
Here's an example using dynamic memory allocation:
struct Node *getList()
{
struct Node *head, *current;
head = NULL;
current = NULL;
// open file
while (/* file has data */) {
int data = /* read data from file */
if (head == NULL) { // list is empty, so create head node
head = malloc(sizeof(struct Node *));
current = head;
} else { // create new element at end of list
current->next = malloc(sizeof(struct Node *));
current = current->next;
}
current->data = data;
current->Node = NULL;
}
// close file
return head;
}
This is psedo-code that doesn't go into the details of reading the relevant data, but you can see how you can create a list of arbitrary size that exists for the lifetime of the program.
If these variables are local, defined inside a function's scope (i.e. stored on the stack), you shouldn't do this, because accessing them after leaving their scope will result in undefined behavior (their contents will likely be overwritten as you call other functions). In fact, any time you return a pointer to a local, stack based variable from your function, you are doing the wrong thing. Given the nature of C, this is problematic since nothing will warn you you are doing something wrong, and it will only fail later when you try to access this area again.
On the other hand, if they are declared as global variables (outside any other function), then you are simply limited by the number of variables declared that way.
You can potentially declare many variables, but keeping track of which one is "free" for use will be painful. Sure, you can even go a step further and say you will have a global preallocated array of nodes to prevent using malloc, but as you are doing all this you are only getting closer to writing your own version of malloc, instead of sticking to the existing, dynamic one.
Additionally, all preallocated space is wasted if you don't use it, and you have no way of dynamically growing your list in runtime (hence the name dynamic allocation).
Here is some good reasons to use dynamic memory
When you declare node struct Node N1;this node will store on stack memory. After scope of the node that will get destroy auto.But in case of dynamic you have handle to free the memory when you done.
When you have some memory limitation.
When you don't know the size of array then dynamic memory allocation will help you.
One issue could be that you cannot use another function to add a new node to your list.
Remember that automatic variables - like the ones created by struct Node node100; - have scope only inside the function in which they are defined. So when you do something like this:
int main()
{
struct Node *head;
/* Some code there you build list as:
head ---> node1 ---> node2 --> .. ---> node99
*/
/* Add a new node using add_node function */
add_node(head, 555);
/* Access the last node*/
}
void add_node(struct Node *head, int val)
{
/* Create new node WITHOUT using malloc */
struct Node new_node;
new_node.data = val;
/* add this node to end of the list */
/* code to add this node to the end of list */
/* last_element_of_list.next = &new_node*/
return;
}
Now you think that you have added a new node to the end of the list. But, unfortunately, its lifetime ends as soon as the add_node function returns. And when you try to access that last node in your main function your program crashes.
So, to avoid this situation you will have put all your code in one single function - so that the lifetime of those nodes do not end.
Having all your code in ONE function is bad practice and will lead to many difficulties.
This was one situation that asks for a dynamic memory allocation, because, a node allocated with malloc will be in scope untill it is freed using free, and you can put code that do different things in different functions, which is a good practice.
You don't have to use dynamic memory to create a linked list, although you definitely don't want to create separate variables for each node. If you want to store up to N items, then you'd need to declare N distinct variables, which becomes a real pain as N gets large. The whole idea behind using a linked list is that it can grow or shrink as necessary; it's a dynamic data structure, so even if you don't use malloc and free, you're going to wind up doing something very similar.
For example, you can create an array of nodes at file scope like so:
struct node {
int data;
struct node *next;
};
/**
* use the static keyword to keep the names from being visible
* to other translation units
*/
static struct node store[N]; /* our "heap" */
static struct node *avail; /* will point to first available node in store */
You the initialize the array so each element points to the next, with the last element pointing to NULL:
void initAvail( void )
{
for ( size_t i = 0; i < N - 1; i++ )
store[i].next = &store[i + 1];
store[N - 1].next = NULL;
avail = store;
}
To allocate a node for your list, we grab the node avail points to and update avail to point to the next available node (if avail is NULL, then there are no more available nodes).
struct node *getNewNode( void )
{
struct node *newNode = NULL;
if ( avail ) /* if the available list isn't empty */
{
newNode = avail; /* grab first available node */
avail = avail->next; /* set avail to point to next available node */
newNode->next = NULL; /* sever newNode from available list, */
} /* which we do *after* we update avail */
/* work it out on paper to understand why */
return newNode;
}
When you're done with a node, add it back to the head of the available list:
void freeNode( struct node *n )
{
n->next = avail;
avail = n;
}
We're not using dynamic memory in the sense that we aren't calling mallic or free; however, we've pretty much recapitulated dynamic memory functionality, with the additional limitation that our "heap" has a fixed upper size.
Note that some embedded systems don't have a heap as such, so you'd have to do something like this to implement a list on such systems.
You can write a singly linked list with out malloc , but make sure the implementation is done in main. but what about writing program for traversing , finding least number ,etc . these struct node variables will go out of scope .
struct node{
int a;
struct node* nextNode;
};
int main()
{
struct node head,node1,node2;
head.a=45;
node1.a=98;
node2.a=3;
head.nextNode=&node1;
node1.nextNode=&node2;
node2.nextNode=NULL;
if(head.nextNode== NULL)
{
printf("List is empty");
}
struct node* ptr=&head;
while(ptr!=NULL)
{
printf("%d ",ptr->a);
ptr=ptr->nextNode;
}
}

Allocating memory for a array of linked lists

Hi guys I'm new to linked lists, but I'm pretty sure that I know how they work, theoretically, I think I might having a syntax misunderstanding, or memory management error.
edit: My main purpose is to make a collection of lists which are indexed by the array, each array element is a head(or root) node. I'm having issues allocation dynamically this struct array.
What I'm doing is the following:
typedef struct item_list{
int item_name;
int item_supplier;
int item_price;
struct item_list *next
}node;
int i;
node ** shop_1 = (node **)malloc(shop_items_elements * sizeof(node));
for (i=0;i<=shop_items_elements;i++)
{
shop_1[i]->next=NULL;
}
I'm getting a segmentation fault while I try to give next at the element i the value of NULL.
The problem is that you are trying to allocate the memory for 20000 items as a contiguous block. Which implies that you actually haven't understood linked lists yet.
I think you are mixing up random access array functionality with pure linked lists which do not allow accessing individual items without traversing the list.
A linked list usually has a head and tail node which are initially NULL when there are no elements in the list:
node* head = NULL;
node* tail = NULL;
When adding a new node you first allocate it by using malloc with the size of a single node struct:
node* the_new_node = (node*)malloc(sizeof(node));
Initialize the struct members, specifically set next to NULL for each new node. Then use this append_node() function to append the node to the linked list:
void append_node(node** head, node** tail, node* the_new_node)
{
if(*tail == NULL)
{ // list was empty
*head = *tail = the_new_node;
}
else
{
(*tail)->next = the_new_node; // link previous tail node with new one
*tail = the_new_node; // set the tail pointer to the new node
}
Please note the pointer to pointers which are needed to update the head and tail pointers. Call the function like this for any given n you want to add:
append_node(&head, &tail, n);
Repeat this for every new node.
A much better way of encapsulating a linked list is putting the head and tail pointers into another struct
typedef struct linked_list
{
node* head;
node* tail;
} list;
and using an instance of that as first argument to append_node() (which I'll leave to you as an exercise ;)
When using such a linked list it is not possible to conveniently access the Nth node in less than O(n) since you have to follow all next pointers starting from the head node until you arrive at the Nth node.
EDIT: If you want to have the possibility to index the shop items and build a linked list from each of the elements I would suggest the following solution:
node** shop_1 = (node**)malloc(shop_items_elements * sizeof(node*));
int i;
for(i = 0; i < shop_items_elements; ++i)
{
node* n = (node*)malloc(sizeof(node));
n->next = NULL;
shop_1[i] = n;
}
You first allocate an array of pointers to node pointers which have to be allocated individually of course. Take a look at this diagram for reference:
The actual node instances may be larger than a pointer's size (unlike drawn in the diagram) which is the reason why you allocate N * sizeof(node*) in a block instead of N * sizeof(node).
Your code needs to look like this
int i;
node * shop_1 = (node *)malloc(shop_items_elements * sizeof(node));
for (i=0;i<shop_items_elements;++i)
{
shop_1[i].next=NULL;
}
Your malloc statement has allocated an array of nodes, not an array of pointers to nodes. (If that is what you wanted instead, then you would have had to initialize each pointer with a further malloc call before trying to assign a value to a field within the node pointed to.)

Global array for malloc

I am working on a project where I need to malloc some data. I am trying to reduce the heap peak of my program by changing around the main structure values I use. I am using a linked list. My struct is like:
struct myS{
int a,b;
float a,b;
struct myS *next;
};
I was thinking that instead of mallocing the struct pointer I would store it in a global array since I dont have much data. How would I do this ?
If you have upper bound for the number of elements you are going to need, you can create a global array [not dynamically allocated], let it be struct myS heap[], and an integer idx, initialized to 0. Once you allocate an element, you will need to increase idx, and attach this element to the requester.
Note - it is a good solution only if you are not expecting to delete elements [or you can afford to allocate each element only once].
If you do need delete, you will need to allocate an extra array that tells you which elements are currently in use, make idx circular [increase with idx = (idx + 1) % size], and check if each element is allocated before giving it, but as I say - it will probably be more time consuming!
code snap [not supporting deletes]:
struct myS heap[SIZE];
int idx = 0;
...
struct myS* allocate() {
return &(heap[idx++]);
}
Note: The above code snap is dangerous - it might overflow if you try to allocate more elements then you have in SIZE.
You could do something like this:
struct myS myArray[ARRAY_SIZE];
/* ... */
struct myS *head = &myArray[0];
head->next = &myArray[1];
head->next->next = &myArray[2];
/* etc... */
The array indexes used doesn't have to be sequential, e.g. head can be index 3 and head->next can be index 21
If you want to initialize the list to use all entries in the array at once, you could do it in a loop:
struct myS *node = head;
for (int i = 1; i < ARRAY_SIZE; i++)
{
node->next = &myArray[i];
node = &myArray[i];
}
node->next = NULL; /* Make sure the tail of the list doesn't have a 'next' pointer */

Resources