understanding the difference between two linked list implementations in c - c

For a month or two since i started learning data-structures , using C, i have been following a particular method of writing linked list. Which looks like this.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
struct Node{
int exponent;
int coeff;
struct Node *next;
};
typedef struct Node N;
N *st = NULL;
void insert(N *node, int c, int e){
N *temp;
node->exponent = e;
node->coeff = c;
if(st == NULL){
node->next = st;
st = node;
} else {
temp = st;
while(temp->next != NULL){
temp = temp->next;
}
node->next = temp->next;
temp->next = node;
}
printf(" %p", st); //this is written on purpose, not that i write it everytime
}
and i call this from the main method,
N *node = malloc(sizeof *node);
insert(node, 1, 2);
The output of the printf for four such calls is
00340D18 00340D18 00340D18 00340D18
i.e the value of the start pointer remains constant, but if i make a small change in the code
typedef struct Node N;
void insert(N *node, N *st, int c, int e){
N *temp;
node->exponent = e;
node->coeff = c;
if(st == NULL){
node->next = st;
st = node;
} else {
temp = st;
while(temp->next != NULL){
temp = temp->next;
}
node->next = temp->next;
temp->next = node;
}
printf(" %p", st);
}
and declare the the start pointer in the main method
N *strt = NULL;
node = malloc(sizeof *node);
insert(node, strt, 1, 1);
then run this four times like in the previous case, the values of start pointer gets changed
after each call
00560D18 00560D30 00560D48 00560D60
Why does this happen?
And if i want to pass the start pointer as a parameter what changes should be made?

Why does this happen?
This happens because the change to st is invisible to the caller. That is st = node has no effect whatsoever for the caller. The function changes its own copy and after the function returns, if the caller prints strt, it will still be NULL.
This is a somewhat subtle consequence of the fact that in C arguments are passed by value, even pointers. So you pass strt by value. You can change st->whatever because it's a pointer and changes will propagate to the caller but changing strt itself will not work.
And if i want to pass the start pointer as a parameter what changes
should be made
This is a regular question on this site and there is also a C FAQ that describes the problem. A simple if somewhat cumbersome change that you can do is have the function take a
N **st and pass &strt.

This is because strt in your main method and st in the modified function insert are two different variables. The function call
insert(node, strt, 1, 1);
copies the value of strt which is defined in main to the function parameter st which is a different variable and is allocated on the stack when the function insert is invoked. Any changes made to st is visible inside the function only because it's a local variable. It goes out of scope once the function returns. Therefore, strt defined in main is still pointing to null and never gets changed. This means that the condition st == NULL is always true and the if block in insert is always executed and the local variable st is set to the newly created node each time the function insert is called. This would, in fact, cause memory leak because you lose the handle on the node once the function insert returns.
What you should do is to pass an address of the variable strt to insert so that the changes made to it is visible in main. Since you always append the new node at the end of the linked list, I suggest a few more changes.
void insert(N *node, N **st, int c, int e) {
N *temp = *st;
node->exponent = e;
node->coeff = c;
node->next = NULL; // set it explicitly to NULL
if(*st == NULL) { // if head of the linked list is NULL
*st = node;
}
else {
while(temp->next != NULL) // reach the end of the linked list
temp = temp->next;
temp->next = node; // add the new node at the end
}
printf("%p", *st);
}
And in main, invoke the function as
// in main method
N *strt = NULL;
node = malloc(sizeof *node);
insert(node, &strt, 1, 1);

Related

Used free() on each node but it's not emptying the list?

So first of all i have 2 linked lists one inside the other (like a matrix) and i made a function to delete an entire node. It seems to be freeing but when i print the value t it outputs weird characters.
Here are the structs used inside the list
typedef struct
{
char codigo[LEN_CODIGO + 1];
char partidaID[LEN_ID + 1];
char chegadaID[LEN_ID + 1];
Data datapartida;
Tempo horapartida;
Tempo duracao;
Data datachegada;
Tempo horachegada;
int capacidade;
int ocupacao;
} Voo;
typedef struct r
{
char *codReserva;
int nPassangeiros;
struct r *next;
} *ListaReservas;
typedef struct node
{
Voo voo;
ListaReservas nodeReservas; /*this is the head to a list inside this list*/
struct node *next;
} *Node;
in the following function i pretend to delete one node and all the nodes of nodeReservas in it, like deleting an entire column of a matrix.
Node eliminaNode(Node head, char codigo[])
{
Node n, prev;
ListaReservas r, temp;
for (n = head, prev = NULL; n != NULL; prev = n, n = n->next)
{
if (strcmp(n->voo.codigo, codigo) == 0) /*If it's the correct node*/
{
if (n == head)
head = n->next;
else
prev->next = n->next;
/*deletes nodeReservas*/
r = n->nodeReservas;
temp = r;
while(temp != NULL)
{
temp = temp->next;
free(r->codReserva);
free(r);
r= temp;
}
/*deletes the whole node*/
free(n);
}
}
return head;
}
I then use this code to tell me which reservations still exist in a node
for (r=n->nodeReservas; r != NULL; r= r->next)
printf("%s %d\n", r->codReserva, r->nPassangeiros);
For example after adding 3 reservations to lets say Node X and deleting the Node with the reservations with eliminaNode(headofList, X). After recreating the node with that same name 'X' and printing its reservations, instead of getting a empty line i get this:
-725147632
�+���U -725147632
#+���U -725147632
So what is the free() freeing? Is this happening because Lista reservas is a pointer?
free() returns the allocated block to the heap where it may be re-used for subsequent allocation requests. It does not (how could it?) modify the pointer to that block and if you retain such a pointer and re-use it after de-allocation, nothing good will happen.
What you should do is set the pointer to NULL (or a valid pointer such as that of the new next node) immediately after freeing the block so that you retain no reference to the now invalid block:
free(r->codReserva);
r->codReserva = NULL ;
free(r);
r= temp;
}
/*deletes the whole node*/
free(n);
n = NULL ;
Doing that should be a habit in C code. You could make things simpler by creating a function say:
void dealloc( void** ref )
{
free( *ref ) ;
*ref = NULL ;
}
Then instead of calling free( n ) you would call dealloc( &n ) for example.
There are other serious issues with this code. For example the code involving temp is somewhat over-complicated (and any code with a variable temp should raise alarm bells - you have given it scope over the entire function, and used it for more than one purpose - that is not good practice). Consider:
r = n->nodeReservas;
while( r != NULL)
{
ListaReservas new_next= r->next;
free(r->codReserva);
r->codReserva = NULL ;
free(r);
r = new_next;
}
There new_next is very localised (literally "temporary") and named appropriately so it is clear what it is. The next problem is that having assigned the value r you do nothing with it! It is presumably n->nodeReservas that you intended to update not r? Perhaps:
ListaReservas r = n->nodeReservas;
while( r != NULL)
{
ListaReservas new_next= r->next;
free(r->codReserva);
r->codReserva = NULL ;
free(r);
n->nodeReservas = new_next;
}
Note in each case the declaration of temporary variables at point of first use, to give the narrowest scope. Note that r is also temporary. However here it is not truly necessary - it is just a shorthand for n->nodeReservas - personally I'd eradicate it - if only to avoid exactly teh bug described above. Having multiple references to a single allocation is a recipe for bugs. Instead:
while( n->nodeReservas != NULL)
{
ListaReservas new_next = n->nodeReservas->next;
free(n->nodeReservas->codReserva);
n->nodeReservas->codReserva = NULL ;
free(n->nodeReservas);
n->nodeReservas = new_next;
}
I cannot say for sure there are not other bugs - that is just the part that had an obvious "code smell".

Deleting a linked list node in a C function doesn't transfer to the calling function

I have this C function which is supposed to find an element in the linked list which has a specific "pos" value, delete it, and return the deleted value to the calling function. It does delete the item, but the change isn't saved in the calling function, the list just doesn't get updated with the new changes.
My list is structured like this:
struct list{
int value;
int pos;
struct list * next_ptr;
};
And my C function is this:
bool findDeleteElement(struct list **ptr, int position, int *value){
struct list** temp = ptr;
if(*ptr!=NULL){
while((*ptr)->pos!=position) ptr=&(*ptr)->next_ptr; //Gets to desired node
temp=ptr;
value=&(*ptr)->value; //saves the value
temp=&(*temp)->next_ptr; //Goes to next node
ptr=temp; //Makes ptr point to next node
return 1;
}
else return 0;
}
I just can't see what I'm missing.
I'm a beginner so I probably made a simple mistake.
Change to:
*value = (*ptr)->value; //saves the value
You only set value, the local copy of your external variable's address. This does not change your external variable in the calling function.
Some question:
What happens when position has the wrong value, such that no node is found?
What's the purpose of temp = ptr;, because temp is overwritten by temp = &(*temp)->next_ptr; without having been used.
Disclaimer: I've not further checked this function.
I kindly advise you to take on other code formatting rules that add more air and make things more readable. Here's an example:
bool findDeleteElement(struct list **ptr, int position, int *value)
{
struct list** temp = ptr;
if (*ptr != NULL)
{
// Gets to desired node
while((*ptr)->pos != position)
{
ptr = &(*ptr)->next_ptr;
}
temp = ptr;
*value = (*ptr)->value; // Saves the value
temp = &(*temp)->next_ptr; // Goes to next node
ptr = temp; // Makes ptr point to next node
return 1;
}
else
{
return 0;
}
}
You are confused about pointers and dereferencing and what & and * actually do. This is a normal state of affairs for a beginner.
To start with, ptr and value when used without * preceding them are function arguments and like automatic (local) variables they disappear when the function scope exits. So this statement:
value=&(*ptr)->value;
Merely changes the value of value i.e. what it points to and has no visible effect to the caller. What you need to change is the thing that value points to. i.e. the statement should look like this:
*value = (*ptr)->value;
The difference is that instead of setting value to the address of (*ptr)->value it sets what valuepoints to to (*ptr)->value.
You have a similar problem with ptr. But your problems are more subtle there because you are also trying to use it as a loop variable. It's better to separate the two uses. I'd write the function something like this:
bool findDeleteElement(struct list **head, int position, int *value)
{
struct list* temp = *head;
struct list* prev = NULL;
while(temp != NULL && temp->pos != position)
{
prev = temp;
temp = temp->next;
}
if (temp == NULL) // position not found
{
return false;
}
else
{
*value = temp->value;
// Now need to delete the node.
if (prev != NULL)
{
// If prev has been set, we are not at the head
prev->next = temp->next; // Unlink the node from the list
}
else // We found the node at the head of the list
{
*head = temp->next;
}
free(temp); // Assumes the node was malloced.
return true;
}
}
The above is not tested or even compiled. I leave that as an exercise for you.
int delete(struct llist **pp, int pos, int *result)
{
struct llist *tmp;
while ( (tmp = *pp)) {
if (tmp->pos != pos) { pp = &tmp->next; continue; }
*result = val;
*pp = tmp->next;
free(tmp);
return 1;
}
return 0;
}

Pointers to pointers - linked list mess

I'm writing a simple C program to manage a linked list defined as follow:
typedef struct node {
int value;
struct node *next;
} *List;
I reviewed the code and it seems okay but when printing results something is not working well.
My main, with problems on comments:
int main(void) {
List n = list_create(1);
insert(n, 2);
insert(n, 3);
insert(n, 5);
insert(n, 4);
//something here does not work properly. It produces the following output:
//Value: 1
//Value: 2
//Value: 3
//Value: 4
//where is value 5?
print_list(n);
delete(n, 3);
print_list(n);
return 0;
}
I don't know where am I destroying list structure. These are my functions, to debug, if you are too kind.
List list_create(int value) {
List new = malloc(sizeof(struct node));
new->value = value;
new->next = NULL;
return new;
}
List new_node(int value, List next_node) {
List new = malloc(sizeof(struct node));
new->value = value;
new->next = next_node;
return new;
}
void print_list(List l) {
List *aux;
for (aux = &l; (*aux) != NULL; aux = &((*aux)->next))
printf("Valor: %d\n", (*aux)->value);
}
void insert(List l, int value) {
List *p;
for (p = &l; (*p) != NULL; p = &((*p)->next))
if ((*p)->value > value) {
List tmp = *p;
List new = new_node(value, tmp);
*p = new;
break;
}
*p = new_node(value, NULL);
}
void delete(List l, int value) {
List *p;
for (p = &l; (*p) != NULL; p = &((*p)->next))
if ((*p)->value == value) {
List del = (*p);
(*p) = ((*p)->next);
free(del);
break;
}
}
This code has (at least) two bugs:
The line
if ((*p)->value > value){
means that if you start the list with 1 as the first value and then try to insert 2,3,4..., the body of the 'if' statement never runs, so nothing ever gets inserted.
If you insert a value below the starting value, you have to modify the list pointer itself. However, as #EOF alluded, you are trying to modify a value passed to a function by taking its address. This won't work. &l does not give you the address of the List you passed, it gives you the address of the local copy on insert()'s stack. You are better off modifying the values of first element of the list 'in place'. If you really want to make the List parameter mutable, you'll need to pass it as a List *, and call the function with the address of the list (e.g. insert(&n,2); ) Your delete() function suffers from the same problem - try deleting the first element of the list.
Try this for your insert function:
void insert(List l, int value)
{
List p;
// Find end of list or highest item less than value
for(p = l; p->next != NULL && p->next->value < value; p = p->next);
if (p->value >= value) {
// Over-write p with new value, and insert p as a new one after.
// This saves having to modify l itself.
int tmpval = p->value;
p->value = value;
p->next = new_node(tmpval, p->next);
} else {
// Insert new item after p
p->next = new_node(value, p->next);
}
}
A comment: it is possible the way you are using pointers is not helping the debugging process.
For example, your print_list() could be re-written like this:
void print_list(List l){
List aux;
for(aux = l; aux != NULL; aux = aux->next)
printf("Valor: %d\n", aux->value);
}
and still behave the same. It is generally good practice not to 'hide' the pointer-like nature of a pointer by including a '*' in the typedef.
For example, if you define your list like this:
typedef struct node{
int value;
struct node *next;
} List
And pass it to functions like this:
my_func(List *l, ...)
then it'll make some of these issues more apparent. Hope this helps.
There are many problems in your code:
Hiding pointers behind typedefs is a bad idea, it leads to confusion for both the programmer and the reader.
You must decide whether the initial node is a dummy node or if the empty list is simply a NULL pointer. The latter is much simpler to handle but you must pass the address of the head node to insert and delete so they can change the head node.
printlist does not need an indirect pointer, especially starting from the address of the pointer passed as an argument. Simplify by using the Node pointer directly.
in insert you correctly insert the new node before the next higher node but you should then return from the function. Instead, you break out of the switch and the code for appending is executed, replacing the inserted node with a new node with the same value and a NULL next pointer. This is the reason 5 gets removed and lost when you insert 4. Furthermore, you should pass the address of the head node so a node can be inserted before the first.
delete starts from the address of the argument. It cannot delete the head node because the pointer in the caller space does not get updated. You should pass the address of the head node.
You should avoid using C++ keywords such as new and delete in C code: while not illegal, it confuses readers used to C++, confuses the syntax highlighter and prevents compilation by C++ compilers.
Here is a simplified and corrected version:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct Node {
int value;
struct Node *next;
} Node;
Node *new_node(int value, Node *next_node) {
Node *node = malloc(sizeof(*node));
if (node != NULL) {
node->value = value;
node->next = next_node;
}
return node;
}
void print_list(Node *list) {
for (; list != NULL; list = list->next)
printf("Valor: %d\n", list->value);
}
void insert_node(Node **p, int value) {
while ((*p) != NULL && (*p)->value < value)
p = &(*p)->next;
*p = new_node(value, *p);
}
void delete_node(Node **p, int value) {
while (*p != NULL) {
if ((*p)->value == value) {
Node *found = *p;
*p = (*p)->next;
free(found);
// return unless delete() is supposed to remove all occurrences
return;
} else {
p = &(*p)->next;
}
}
}
int main(void) {
Node *n = NULL;
insert_node(&n, 2);
insert_node(&n, 3);
insert_node(&n, 5);
insert_node(&n, 4);
insert_node(&n, 1);
print_list(n);
delete_node(&n, 3);
print_list(n);
delete_node(&n, 1);
print_list(n);
return 0;
}

Why the appending in C linked list failed

I am new to C, now I am making a linked list for face detection.
Below is the struct and the method for appending face at the end of linked list.
//Structure for storing a face with x, y and window size
typedef struct Face {
int window;
int x;
int y;
struct Face* next;
} Face;
//Append face(window, x, y) to the end of linked list starting from head
void push(Face* head, int window, int x, int y) {
Face* temp = (Face *)malloc(sizeof(Face));
temp->window = window;
temp->x = x;
temp->y = y;
temp->next = NULL;
Face* cur = head;
if (head == NULL) {
printf("Called\n");
head = temp;
} else {
while (cur->next != NULL) {
cur = cur->next;
}
cur->next = temp;
}
}
In another file, the executable, I called push(head, 1, 2, 3)[head here is initialized to NULL].
Only "Called' is printed on the screen. And the head is still NULL in the executable when I examine the linked list.
I have no idea why the head is not updated, but when I have it in the same file, it seems to work fine.
It's a guessing game since you don't show the relevant code.
Luckily, it's quite easy to guess well in this case...
The parameter you pass into the function is of type Face * and you set it to a new value (the new struct you allocated). Unfortunately, you're not returning this value, nor are you making sure the input parameter is capable of "transferring" data back to the calling context. What you should do is:
void push(Face** head, int window, int x, int y) {
// all you code here...
*head = temp
// rest of code...
}
And when you call the function:
push(&head, 1, 2, 3);
if (head == NULL) {
printf("Called\n");
head = temp;
}
The assignment head = temp only modifies the local copy of the head pointer. So it is not propagated to the code that called push(). If head was NULL in the code that calls push(), then it will remain so.
You could for example return the list head, as in:
Face *push(Face* head, int window, int x, int y) {
Face* temp = (Face *)malloc(sizeof(Face));
temp->window = window;
temp->x = x;
temp->y = y;
temp->next = NULL;
Face* cur = head;
if (head == NULL) {
printf("Called\n");
head = temp;
} else {
while (cur->next != NULL) {
cur = cur->next;
}
cur->next = temp;
}
return head;
}
And then use it like this:
/* ... */
head = push(head, window, x, y);
/* ... */
Another alternative is to pass a pointer to pointer to head (Face **), and replace that assignment with *head = temp;, but if you're a beginner I'd stick to the previous approach (and in my opinion, using double indirection is not necessary in most of the cases, but this can be subjective).
Finally, you might want to handle possible malloc(3) errors: the allocation can fail, you should check and handle that case.
I believe it is because you are passing in the value of the pointer head, which creates a copy of the pointer. By setting head to another address, you're not modifying head outside of scope, but rather the head within the method scope.
You'd need to pass in a pointer to the pointer to change it.
Function parameters are local variables of function. They are copies of the arguments. So the function parameter head is a copy of the argument head. Any changes of the parameter (of the copy of the argument) does not influence on the argument. You have to pass the head by reference.
Define the function the following way
//Append face(window, x, y) to the end of linked list starting from head
void push( Face **head, int window, int x, int y )
{
Face *temp = malloc( sizeof( Face ) );
if ( temp != NULL )
{
temp->window = window;
temp->x = x;
temp->y = y;
temp->next = NULL;
while ( *head ) head = &( *head )->next;
*head = temp;
}
}
And call the function like
push( &head, 1, 2, 3 );

Single linked list in C

I am trying to write a singly-linked list in C. So far, I just get segmentation faults.
I am probably setting the pointers wrong, but I just couldn't figure how to do it correctly.
The list should be used for "processors" sorted from highest priority (at the beginning of the list) to lowest priority (at the end of the list). Head should point to the first element, but somehow I am doing it wrong.
First of all here is the code:
struct process {
int id;
int priority;
struct process *next;
}
struct process *head = NULL;
void insert(int id, int priority) {
struct process * element = (struct process *) malloc(sizeof(struct process));
element->id = id;
element->priority = priority;
while(head->next->priority >= priority)
head = head->next;
element->next = head->next;
head->next = element;
// I put here a printf to result, which leads to segmenatition fault
// printf("%d %d\n", element->id, element->priority);
}
/* This function should return and remove element with the highest priority */
int pop() {
struct process * element = head->next;
if(element == NULL)
return -1;
head->next = element->next;
free(element);
return element->id;
}
/* This function should remove a element with a given id */
void popId(int id) {
struct process *ptr = head;
struct process *tmp = NULL;
while(prt != NULL) {
if(ptr->id == id) {
ptr->next = ptr->next->next;
tmp = ptr->next;
} else {
prt = ptr->next;
}
}
free(tmp);
}
Unfortunately, I could not try out pop() and popId() due to the segmentation fault.
May anyone tell me what I am doing wrong?
EDIT: Now, I edited the insert function. It looks like this:
void insert(int id, int priority) {
struct process * element = (struct process *) malloc(sizeof(struct process));
struct process * temp = head;
element->id = id;
element->priority = priority;
if(head == NULL) {
head = element; // edited due to Dukeling
element->next = NULL;
} else {
while(temp->next != NULL && temp->next->priority >= priority)
temp = temp->next;
element->next = head->next;
head->next = element;
}
// I put here a printf to result, which leads to segmenatition fault
// printf("%d %d\n", element->id, element->priority);
}
But I still get segmentation fault for pop() and popId(). What did I miss here?
You don't check if head is NULL in insert.
You actually don't check if head is NULL in any function. You should, unless you want to put some dummy element on head, to simplify the code.
For insert:
About these lines:
while(head->next->priority >= priority)
head = head->next;
If head is NULL, that's not going to work. This may not actually be a problem if head can never be NULL for whichever reason (e.g. it has a dummy element as gruszczy mentioned).
You're changing head, thus you're getting rid of the first few elements every time you insert. You probably need a temp variable.
You need to also have a NULL check in case you reach the end of the list.
So, we get:
struct process *temp = head;
while (temp->next != NULL && temp->next->priority >= priority)
temp = temp->next;
For pop:
If the first element isn't a dummy element, then you should be returning the ID of head, not head->next (and you were trying to return a value of an already freed variable - this is undefined behaviour).
if (head == NULL)
return -1;
int id = head->id;
struct process *temp = head;
head = head->next;
free(temp);
return id;
For popId:
You're checking ptr's ID, but, if it's the one we're looking for, you're removing the next element rather than ptr. You should be checking the next one's ID.
head == NULL would again need to be a special case.
The free should be in the if-statement. If it isn't, you need to cater for it not being found or finding multiple elements with the same ID.
You should break out of the loop in the if-statement if there can only be one element with that ID, or you want to only remove the first such element.
I'll leave it to you to fix, but here's a version using double-pointers.
void popId(int id)
{
struct process **ptr = &head;
while (*ptr != NULL)
{
if ((*ptr)->id == id)
{
struct process *temp = *ptr;
*ptr = (*ptr)->next;
free(temp);
}
else
{
prt = &(*ptr)->next;
}
}
}
Note that the above code doesn't break out of the loop in the if-statement. This can be added if you're guaranteed to only have one element with some given ID in the list, or you want to just delete the first such element.
Your not checking your pointers before accessing their values for dereference. This will automatically lead to undefined behavior if the pointer is invalid (NULL or indeterminate). With each implementation below, note we don't access data via dereference unless the pointer is first-known as valid:
Implementation: insert()
void insert(int id, int priority)
{
struct process **pp = &head;
struct process *element = malloc(sizeof(*element);
element->id = id;
element->priority = priority;
while (*pp && (*pp)->priority >= priority)
pp = &(*pp)->next;
element->next = *pp;
*pp = element;
}
Implementation: pop()
Your pop() function appears to be designed to return the popped value. While this isn't entirely uncommon it has the undesirable side-effect of having no mechanism for communicating to the caller that the queue is empty without a sentinel-value of some sort (such as (-1) in your case. This is the primary reason most queues have a top(), pop(), and isempty() functional interface. Regardless, assuming (-1) is acceptable as an error condition:
int pop()
{
struct process *tmp = head;
int res = -1;
if (head)
{
head = head->next;
res = tmp->id;
free(tmp);
}
return res;
}
Implementation: popId()
Once again, looking for a specific node can be accomplished with a pointer-to-pointer in a fairly succinct algorithm, with automatic updating done for you due to using the actual physical pointers rather than just their values:
void popId(int id)
{
struct process ** pp = &head, *tmp = NULL;
while (*pp && (*pp)->id != id)
pp = &(*pp)->next;
if (*pp)
{
tmp = *pp;
*pp = tmp->next;
free(tmp);
}
}
I strongly advise stepping through each of these with a debugger to see how they work, particularly the insert() method, which has quite a lot going on under the covers for what is seemingly a small amount of code.
Best of luck

Resources