I saw this working code to converting a tree to its mirror.
struct node* mir(struct node *root)
{
if(root)
{
struct node * temp;
mir(root->left);
mir(root->right);
temp=root->left;
root->left=root->right;
root->right=temp;
}
Should not be there mir(struct node **) like we have in linked list?
All calls in C are call by value, which means the called functions cannot change the value of the argument in the caller's context. The called function receives just a copy of the arguments. However, you can effectively bypass this by passing a pointer to your variable, and then modifying its dereferenced state. What if the variable you want to change is a pointer? You pass a pointer to a pointer.
struct node* mir(struct node *root);
struct node* mir2(struct node **root);
...
/* following cannot change value of root */
x = mir(root);
/* following may change value of root */
x = mir2(&root);
Related
I'm trying to create a method for inserting nodes into a BST with the following structs:
// node structure
struct Node {
int val;
struct Node* left;
struct Node* right;
};
// binary tree structure
struct BinaryTree {
struct Node* root;
};
Originally I created this method for adding nodes to the tree:
// add value to binary tree
void _AddNode(struct Node* node, int val) {
if (node == NULL)
*(&node) = CreateNode(val);
else if (val <= node->val)
_AddNode(node->left, val);
else
_AddNode(node->right, val);
}
void AddNode(struct BinaryTree* tree, int val) {
_AddNode(tree->root, val);
}
Using this function to construct the tree, I get a Segmentation fault: 11 error when I try to traverse, print, access data from the tree.
However, when I modified the function to pass in a double pointer and effectively do the same thing it worked:
// add value to binary tree
void _AddNode(struct Node** node, int val) {
if (*node == NULL)
*node = CreateNode(val);
else if (val <= (*node)->val)
_AddNode(&(*node)->left, val);
else
_AddNode(&(*node)->right, val);
}
void AddNode(struct BinaryTree* tree, int val) {
_AddNode(&tree->root, val);
}
Why does the latter work, but the former doesn't.
However, when I modified the function to pass in a double pointer and effectively do the same thing it worked
Substantially the same thing, on fundamentally different data. The (&node) in your original attempt gives you a pointer to a local variable. When you dereference that and assign to the result, you are therefore modifying the local variable. Such a modification is not visible in any way to the caller.
On the other hand if you pass (say) a suitable double pointer to your function, say _AddNode(&(*node)->left, 42), then the value of the function parameter points to the same thing: the (*node)->left of the caller. If you dereference that pointer and assign to the result then naturally that is visible to the caller.
It seems that both the original and modified function are identical
Clearly, they are not lexically identical. You seem to mean that they appear to you to be equivalent, but since the difference in behavior disproves such an equivalence, it stands to reason that the manifest differences in the two functions in fact produce different semantics. The key thing that seems to have confused you is that in C, function arguments are always passed by value, so each function parameter starts with the value passed by the caller, but is not an alias for the caller's corresponding argument. Parameters of pointer type are no exception.
Assuming the relevant header files, functions for Singly Linked List in C are declared.
Is the following definition of Delete() correct?
/* The Structure for SLL
typedef struct SLL
{
int data;
struct SLL *next;
}node;
Function Delete() deletes a node*/
void Delete( node **head)
{
node *temp, *prev;
int key;
temp = *head;
if(temp == NULL)
{
printf("\nThe list is empty");
return;
}
clrscr();
printf("\nEnter the element you want to delete:");
scanf("%d", &key);
temp = search( *head , key);//search()returns the node which has key
if(temp != NULL)
{
prev = get_prev(*head, key);
if(prev != NULL)
{
prev->next = temp->next;
free(temp);
}
else
{
*head = temp->next;
free(temp);
}
printf("\nThe node is deleted");
getch();
}
}
1) What happens if I replace(node ** head) with (node *head)?
2) What happens if I replace void Delete (node **head) with node
*Delete(node *head)?
3) Is there an alternate way to delete a node in C?
Thanks in advance
This isn't a tutorial site, but here goes...
You do know that arguments in C are passed by value? Meaning the value is copied.
For example:
void some_function(int a)
{
// ...
}
When calling the function above, like
int x = 5;
some_function(x);
Then the value in x is copied into the argument a in the function. If the code inside the function assigns to a (e.g. a = 12;) then you only modify the local variable a, the copy. It does not modify the original variable.
Now, if we want the function to modify x, then we must emulate pass by reference, which is done using pointers and the address-of operator:
void some_function(int *a)
{
*a = 12; // Modify where a is pointing
}
Now to call that, we don't create a pointer variable and pass that (though it's possible as well), instead we use the address-of operator & to pass a pointer to the variable:
int x = 5;
some_function(&x); // Pass a pointer to the variable x
The pointer &x will be passed by value (since that's the only way to pass arguments in C), but we don't want to modify the pointer, we want to modify the data where it points.
Now back to your specific function: Your function wants to modify a variable which is a pointer, then how do we emulate pass by reference? By passing a pointer to the pointer.
So if you have
node *head;
// Initialize head, make it point somewhere, etc.
Now since the Delete function needs to modify where head points, we pass a pointer tohead`, a pointer to the pointer:
Delete(&head);
The Delete function of course must accept that type, a pointer to a pointer to node, i.e. node **. It then uses the dereference operator * to get where the pointer is pointing:
*head = temp->next;
1) If you replace node** head with node* head you won't modify the original head pointer. You probably have a head somewhere that marks the beginning of the linked list. When you delete a node, there's a chance that you want to delete head. In that case you need to modify head to point to the next node in the linked list.
*head = temp->next;
free(temp);
This part of your code does exactly that. Here, temp == head. We want head to point to head->next, but if we pass in node* head to the function, the pointer will get modified but the changes will disappear because you're passing the pointer by value. You need to pass in &head which will be of type node ** head if you want the changes to be reflected outside of the function.
2) You will then change the function definition to return a void pointer (which is a placeholder pointer that can be converted to any pointer. Take care to not break any aliasing rules with this. But the problem from (1) remains, although, you could return a modified head, and assign it to the returned value. In that case define the function won't fit well with other cases where the head doesn't need to be modified. So you could return a pointer for head if it's modified or return NULL when it doesnt. It's a slightly messier method of doing things imho, though.
3) Yes, but that depends on the way a linked list is implemented. For the datatype shown here, the basic delete operation is as given.
I have a structure like this
struct node
{
int data;
struct node* next;
};
Which I use to create singly linked list.
I created other functions like
int push(struct node* head,int element);
which pushes data onto stack created using node structs.
The function then tries to update the struct node* head passed to it using code(it does other things as well)
head=(struct node*)malloc(sizeof(struct node));
The call is made as such
struct node* stack;
push(stack,number);
It looks like this code created copy of the pointer passed to it. So I had to change the function to
int push(struct node** head,int element)
and
*head=(struct node*)malloc(sizeof(struct node));
The call is made as such
struct node* stack;
push(&stack,number);
So my question is, what was the earlier function doing? Is it necessary to pass struct node** to the function if I want to update original value of pointer or is my approach wrong?
Sorry I cannot provide complete code as it is an assignment.
C always passes by value. To change a variable passed to a function, instead of passing the variable itself, you pass a reference(its address).
Let's say you're calling your function with the old signature
int push(struct node* head,int element);
struct node *actual_head = NULL;
push(actual_head, 3);
Now before calling push, your variable actual_head will have value as NULL.
Inside the push function, a new variable head will be pushed to stack. It will have the same value as passed to it, i.e. NULL.
Then when you call head = malloc(...), your variable head will get a new value instead of actual_head which you wanted to.
To mitigate the above, you'll have to change the signature of your function to
int push(struct node** head,int element);
struct node *actual_head = NULL
push(&actual_head, 3);
Now if you notice carefully, the value of actual_head is NULL, but this pointer is also stored somewhere, that somewhere is its address &actual_head. Let's take this address as 1234.
Now inside the push function, your variable head which can hold the address of a pointer(Notice the two *), will have the value of 1234
Now when you do *head = malloc(...), you're actually changing the value of the object present at location 1234, which is your actual_head object.
C always passes parameters by value (i.e., by copying it). This applies even to pointers, but in that case, it is the pointer itself that is copied. Most of the times you use pointers, that is fine, because you are interested in manipulating the data that is pointed to by the pointer. However, in your situation, you want to modify the pointer itself, so you do indeed have to use a pointer to a pointer.
Yes.
The first version of your program was passing the pointer by value. Although it passed an address (held by the pointer to struct) it didn't pass the pointer's address - necessary to update the value.
Whenever you want to update a variable's value you must pass the variable's address. To pass a pointer address, you need a parameter pointer to pointer to type.
In your case, pointer to pointer to struct node.
The code is not doing what you think but not because it creates a copy of the node, it creates a copy of the pointer.
Try printing
fprintf(stdout, "Address of head: %p\n", (void *) head);
both, inside push() and in the caller function.
The pointer you pass in and the parameter have different addresses in memory although they both point to the same address, storing the result of malloc() in it doesn't persist after the funcion has returned.
You need to pass a pointer to the pointer like this
int push(struct node **head, int element)
{
/* Ideally, check if `head' is `NULL' and find the tail otherwise */
*head = malloc(sizeof(**head));
if (*node == NULL)
return SOME_ERROR_VALUE;
/* Do the rest here */
return SOME_SUCCESS_VALUE_LIKE_0;
}
And to call it, just
struct node *head;
head = NULL;
push(&head, value);
/* ^ take the address of head and pass a pointer with it */
of course, the push() implementation should be very differente but I think you will get the idea.
Everything everybody has said is absolutely correct in terms of your question. However, I think you should also consider the design. Part of your problem is that you are conflating the stack itself with the internal structures needed to store data on it. You should have a stack object and a node object. i.e.
struct Node
{
int data;
struct Node* next;
}
struct Stack
{
struct Node* head;
}
Your push function can then take a pointer to the Stack without any double indirection. Plus there is no danger of pushing something on to a node that is in the middle of the stack.
void push(struct Stack* stack, int value)
{
struct Node* node = malloc(sizeof node);
node->data = value;
node->next = stack->head;
stack->head = node;
}
The function
int push(struct node* head,int element) {
head=(struct node*)malloc(sizeof(struct node));
}
allocate some memory and throw it away (cause memory leak).
Passing “pointer to structure” to a function do create local copies of it.
It is necessary to pass struct node** to the function if you want to update original value of pointer. (using global variables is generally considered as a bad idea)
When you pass stack to your function push(struct node* head,int element)
and do
head=(struct node*)malloc(sizeof(struct node));
The pointer head will update to the memory allocated by malloc() and stack is unaware of this memory as you just passed the value.(which is uninitialized here)
When you pass the address then you have a pointer to pointer which makes the changes inside push() to be reflected on stack
So my question is, what was the earlier function doing?
Your earlier function was defined to receive a pointer to an object. You passed your function an uninitialized struct node pointer. A function can't do anything with a value representing an uninitialized pointer. So your function was passed garbage, but no harm was done because your function immediately ignored it by overwriting with a pointer to allocated memory. Your function is not using the value you passed for anything except temporary local storage now. Upon return from your function, your parameters to the function are thrown away (they are just copies), and the value of your stack variable is as it was before, still uninitialized. The compiler usually warns you about using a variable before it is initialized.
By the way, the pointer value to the allocated memory was also thrown away/lost upon function return. So there would now be a location in memory with no reference and therefore no way to free it up, i.e., you have a memory leak.
Is it necessary to pass struct node** to the function if I want to update original value of pointer or is my approach wrong?
Yes, it is necessary to pass the address of a variable that you want filled in by the function being called. It must be written to accept a pointer to the type of data it will supply. Since you are referencing your object with a pointer, and since your function is generating a pointer to your object, you must pass a pointer to a pointer to your object.
Alternatively, you can return a pointer as a value from a function, for example
struct node * Function() { return (struct node *)malloc(sizeof(struct node)); }
The call would be...
struct node *stack;
stack = Function();
if(stack == NULL) { /* handle failure */ }
So, your approach is not wrong, just your implementation (and understanding) need work.
I am solving a program to delete all the elements in a linked list and i encountered the following problem:
When i used a delete function with return type void, and checked if the start pointer is NULL in the main ,it wasn't and gives me absurd result
Code:
void deletes(struct node *start)
{
struct node *current,*next;
current=start;
while(current!=NULL)
{
next=current->link;
free(current);
start=next;
current=next;
}
start=NULL;
return ;
}
But if i change the return type, it works fine:
struct node *deletes(struct node *start)
{
struct node *current,*next;
current=start;
while(current!=NULL)
{
next=current->link;
free(current);
start=next;
current=next;
}
start=NULL;
return start;
}
Why is the start=NULL working in the first code?
My entire code is here
It's because in the first version you pass the list header by value, meaning the pointer to the head is copied, and you change only the copy in the function. Those changes are not visible after the function returns as no changes are made on the original copy.
Either do as you do in the second version, returning the result, or pass the pointer by reference, meaning you pass the address of the pointer (or a pointer to the pointer) using the address-of operator. Of course this means that you have to change the function as well:
void deletes(struct node **start)
{
struct node *current = *start;
/* Deleting the list... */
*start = NULL;
}
Call it like
struct node *list_head = ...;
deletes(&list_head);
Because in C, function arguments are passed by value. If you write start = NULL; inside a function, it will be ineffective outside of that function (it will only set the start pointer to NULL, which is essentially just a copy of the pointer value passed in, and it's local to the function.).
If you want to modify a function argument, you must pass a pointer to it. So,
void delete(struct node **start)
{
// ... delete ...
*start = NULL;
}
then
delete(&list);
would work.
It is because you should have (struct node **start), which can allow you to pass a pointer to the list so you can modify the list.
Currently you are only passing in a copy of the linked list to the function and therefore aren't changing the value of the actual list just a copy. Hence why when you return the copy you see the results
When we want to change the value of an ordinary variable by in a function we pass it using call by reference. But I am not able to understand the intricacies when we have to pass a pointer variable(like a node of a binary tree) using call by refence. I understand that if we want to modify the poiter variable to point to another node we have to use call by reference. But what if we have to modify the data element of the root. I thought that to change it also we would need a call by reference. But the following code snippet is giving an output of 10, 10, 10 even though I have passed the root node of the tree using call by value in the function modifyTree. Am I missing something over here?
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
struct node
{
int data;
struct node* left;
struct node* right;
};
/* Helper function that allocates a new node with the
given data and NULL left and right pointers. */
struct node* newNode(int data)
{
struct node* node = (struct node*)malloc(sizeof(struct node));
node->data = data;
node->left = NULL;
node->right = NULL;
return(node);
}
/* This function sets the data fields of some of the nodes of tree to 10*/
void modifyTree(struct node* node)
{
node->data = 10;
node->left->data = 10;
node->right->data = 10;
}
int main()
{
struct node *root = newNode(1);
root->left = newNode(2);
root->right = newNode(3);
root->left->left = newNode(4);
root->left->right = newNode(5);
modifyTree(root);
printf("%d\n", root->data);
printf("%d\n", root->left->data);
printf("%d\n", root->right->data);
getchar();
return 0;
}
Passing a pointer by value means the called function receives the exact same pointer value that the caller used, so any accesses through that pointer will refer to the same memory.
You would need a double pointer if you wanted the function to modify the pointer value the caller has (for instance by allocating a new tree, thus "creating" a new pointer value).
You are passing the pointer by value, but the pointer still points at the same thing. I'll use some hypothetical values to demonstrate.
In main you allocate a new struct node. Let's say it gets created at memory location 0x12345. So now your struct node *root contains 0x12345.
You now call modifyTree(root);. root gets passed by value to the root argument of modifyTree.
That root now contains 0x12345. It's pointing at the same memory location.
So when you access that location with node->data = 10, you are accessing the same memory you created in main.
You pass the pointer by value yes, but what you are changing inside the modifyTree function are elements of the struct that the pointer is pointing to. Passing the pointer to the struct by value will not prevent you from changing the internal contents of the struct being pointed at by your parameter. If it were the pointer itself that you were changing, then you would see the behaviour that you are expecting.