I am having trouble with inserting items in linked list. All the elements end up having the same *data content that is inserted in the last. The program compiles successfully. I use gcc and gdb.
I am new to coding so please mention troubles if any that you see in my programming style.
typedef struct Node{
void* data;
struct Node* next;
} *node;
node allocate(){
node current = malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
current->data = NULL;
current->next = NULL;
return current;
}
void insert(node *head, void *data){
// if head has no data then set the data on head and return
if(((*head)->data == NULL)&&((*head)->next == NULL)){
(*head)->data = data;
return;
}
node newHead = allocate();
newHead->data = data;
newHead->next = *head;
*head = newHead;
//printf("Node Data : %d\tNext Node Data : %d",
//*(int *)((*head)->data), *(int *)((*head)->data));
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]){
node head = allocate();
int count = inputSequence(&head);
int *aod = calloc((size_t) count, sizeof(int));
generateAOD(head, aod);
if(checkJolly(aod, count) == TRUE)
printf("Jolly\n");
else
printf("Not Jolly\n");
return 0;
}
int inputSequence(node *input){
int *num = malloc(sizeof(int));
int count = 0;
while((scanf("%d", num) != EOF)){
insert(input, (void *)num);
count++;
}
traverse(*input, fn);
return count;
}
Your insert logic is non-existant. And you're literally making your life harder by attempting to manage a linked list in the fashion you're using.
The head pointer itself should indicate whether the list is empty. If it is NULL, its empty. If it isn't, there's data. Code the insertion logic accordingly.
And your inputSequence is utterly broken. It only allocates ONE data point, then uses the same data allocation for every insertion. You need one for each insertion.
First, change allocate() to accept the data being inserted. It will make the remaining code less cluttered:
node allocate(void *data)
{
node current = malloc(sizeof(*current));
current->data = data;
current->next = NULL;
return current;
}
Second, insert by allocating a new node as needed.
void insert(node *head, void *data)
{
node p = allocate(data);
p->next = *head;
*head = p;
}
Next, fix inputSequence() to properly allocate memory for each entry:
int inputSequence(node *input)
{
int count = 0;
int num = 0;
// note: check for number of params *successfully* parsed.
// if it isn't 1, its time to leave the loop.
while(scanf("%d", &num) == 1)
{
int *data = malloc(sizeof(num));
*data = num;
insert(input, data);
++count;
}
return count;
}
And lastly, make sure your head pointer is initially NULL in main().
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
node head = NULL;
// load linked list
inputSequence(&head);
// ... the rest of your code....;
return 0;
}
With the above, the logical answer of "Is my list empty" is simply if (!head) Further, this makes things like traversal trivial.
void traverse(node ptr, void (*pfn)(void *))
{
while (ptr)
{
pfn(ptr->data);
ptr = ptr->next;
}
}
Freeing the list is equally trivial:
void destroy(node *head)
{
while (*head)
{
node p = *head;
*head = p->next;
free(p->data);
free(p);
}
}
typedef struct Node{
void* data; // Make it as int or any other data type
struct Node* next;
} *node;
In function inputSequence() you are allocating memory for num at the very beginning and making node->data point to this memory each time you are adding a node. Hence data pointer of each node of your linked list points to the same memory location and hence contains the same value.
If you still want to continue with data as a void pointer, allocate num for each iteration of the while loop and pass this to insert function.
while((scanf("%d", num) != EOF)){
num = malloc(sizeof(int);
insert(input, (void *)num);
count++;
}
Related
I have created a new struct that represents a linked list and two functions listDestroy and arr2list. The second function gets a generic array and converts it into a list. The code:
typedef struct List {
struct List* next;
void *value;
} List;
void listDestroy(List* list, void freeElement(void*)) {
while(list != NULL) {
freeElement(list->value);
struct List* temp_node = list;
list = list->next;
free(temp_node);
}
}
void* arr2list(void* array[], int length, void* copyElement(void*), void freeElement(void*)) {
if (length == 0 || !copyElement || !freeElement) {
return NULL;
}
struct List* head = (struct List*) malloc(sizeof(struct List));
if (head == NULL) {
return NULL;
}
List* current_node = head;
for(int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
current_node->value = copyElement(array[i]);
struct List* new_node = (struct List*) malloc(sizeof(struct List));
if (new_node == NULL) {
listDestroy(head, freeElement);
return NULL;
}
current_node->next = new_node;
current_node = new_node;
}
return head;
}
I think that I have a problem with the copyElement(array[i]);. I want to pass a generic array of elements to arr2list but I'm not sure if void* array[] is the right way. If I change it to be void* array I get an error for array[i]. What is the right way to make it work? Is it possible to also show a working example?
The last node of the list ends up with a NULL next and a garbled value. I don't think this is what you wanted. Try this loop:
struct List* head = NULL;
struct List** tail = &head;
for(int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
*tail = malloc(sizeof(struct List));
if (*tail == NULL) {
listDestroy(head, freeElement);
return NULL;
}
tail[0]->value = copyElement(array[i]);
tail = &(tail[0]->next);
}
*tail = NULL;
return head;
This uses a pointer to pointer so that we can update head or next depending on where we are in the loop without an extra if condition. Note that the allocaction of head is inside the loop now, so we always allocate exactly as many nodes as we need.
void* array[] is completely valid in this scenario, although I don't see the point of copyElement.
Perhaps just remove it and use array[i] instead?
I'd also like to point out a few mistakes that you may want to fix in your code:
Don't cast the result of malloc and use sizeof(*var) instead of sizeof(type). They're unneeded and may cause issues later on if you change the type of head. So, change this (and any later occurrences):
struct List* head = (struct List*) malloc(sizeof(struct List));
to this:
struct List* head = malloc(sizeof(*head));
Consider returning struct List * from arr2list. Change this:
void* arr2list(void* array[], int length, void* copyElement(void*), void freeElement(void*)) {
to this:
struct List* arr2list(void* array[], int length, void* copyElement(void*), void freeElement(void*)) {
Also, use either struct List * or List *. Inconsistencies may make it hard to understand your code.
It may be clearer if you pass function pointers to your functions instead of just functions. So, instead of doing this:
returntype func(params),
do this:
returntype (*func)(params),
You may also want to change malloc calls to calloc calls. calloc zeroes out memory, which can help in debugging. Change:
malloc(...)
to:
calloc(1, ...)
Here's an example combining code fixes from Joshua's post and mine:
list.c:
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct List {
struct List* next;
void *value;
} List;
void listDestroy(struct List* list, void (*freeElement)(void*)) {
while(list != NULL) {
freeElement(list->value);
struct List* temp_node = list;
list = list->next;
free(temp_node);
}
}
struct List* arr2list(void* array[], int length, void (*freeElement)(void*)) {
struct List* head = NULL;
struct List** tail = &head;
if (length == 0 || !freeElement) {
return NULL;
}
for(int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
*tail = calloc(1, sizeof(struct List));
if (*tail == NULL) {
listDestroy(head, freeElement);
return NULL;
}
tail[0]->value = array[i];
tail = &(tail[0]->next);
}
*tail = NULL;
return head;
}
test.c:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include "list.c"
void free_element(void *el)
{
free(el);
}
int main(void)
{
List *list;
int ctr;
void *array[4];
for(ctr = 0; ctr < 4; ctr++)
{
/* Don't usually pass sizeof(type) to malloc(),
* but these are extenuating circumstances. */
array[ctr] = malloc(sizeof(int));
if(!array[ctr]) return 1;
*(int *)array[ctr] = ctr * 4;
}
list = arr2list(array, sizeof(array)/sizeof(array[0]), free_element);
while(list)
{
printf("%d\n", *(int *)list->value);
list = list->next;
}
listDestroy(list, free_element);
return 0;
}
Output:
0
4
8
12
One last note: you may consider creating a header file that defines these structures and functions (and remove the structure from list.c). Here's an example:
#ifndef LIST_H
#define LIST_H 1
typedef struct List { // Remove this from list.c
struct List* next;
void *value;
} List;
void listDestroy(struct List*, void (*)(void*));
struct List* arr2list(void* [], int, void (*)(void*));
#endif
I was having some confusion between ListNode and LinkedList. Basically my question was divided into 2 parts. For first part, I was supposed to do with ListNode. The function prototype as such:
int removeNode(ListNode **ptrHead, int index);
All function were working fine for the ListNode part. Then as for the second part, I was supposed to change the function above to this:
int removeNode(LinkedList *11, int index);
My code for part 1 which is working fine look like this:
int removeNode(ListNode **ptrHead, int index) {
ListNode *pre, *cur;
if (index == -1)
return 1;
else if (findNode(*ptrHead, index) != NULL) {
pre = findNode(*ptrHead, index - 1);
cur = pre->next;
pre->next = cur->next;
return 0;
}
else
return 1;
}
ListNode *findNode(ListNode *head, int index) {
ListNode *cur = head;
if (head == NULL || index < 0)
return NULL;
while (index > 0) {
cur = cur->next;
if (cur == NULL) return NULL;
index--;
}
return cur;
}
And here is my entire code for the part 2 which is not working:
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct _listnode {
int num;
struct _listnode *next;
}ListNode;
typedef struct _linkedlist {
ListNode *head;
int size;
}LinkedList;
void printNode2(ListNode *head);
int removeNode2(LinkedList *ll, int index);
int main()
{
int value, index;
ListNode *head = NULL, *newNode = NULL;
LinkedList *ptr_ll = NULL;
printf("Enter value, -1 to quit: ");
scanf("%d", &value);
while (value != -1) {
if (head == NULL) {
head = malloc(sizeof(ListNode));
newNode = head;
}
else {
newNode->next = malloc(sizeof(ListNode));
newNode = newNode->next;
}
newNode->num = value;
newNode->next = NULL;
scanf("%d", &value);
}
printNode2(head);
printf("\nEnter index to remove: ");
scanf("%d", &index);
removeNode2(ptr_ll, index);
printNode2(head);
return 0;
}
void printNode2(ListNode *head) {
printf("Current list: ");
while (head != NULL) {
printf("%d ", head->num);
head = head->next;
}
}
int removeNode2(LinkedList *ll, int index) {
ListNode *head = ll->head;
if (head == index)
{
if (head->next == NULL)
{
printf("There is only one node. The list can't be made empty ");
return 1;
}
/* Copy the data of next node to head */
head->num = head->next->num;
// store address of next node
index = head->next;
// Remove the link of next node
head->next = head->next->next;
return 0;
}
// When not first node, follow the normal deletion process
// find the previous node
ListNode *prev = head;
while (prev->next != NULL && prev->next != index)
prev = prev->next;
// Check if node really exists in Linked List
if (prev->next == NULL)
{
printf("\n Given node is not present in Linked List");
return 1;
}
// Remove node from Linked List
prev->next = prev->next->next;
return 0;
}
When I try to run the part 2, the cmd just not responding and after a while, it just closed by itself and I have no idea which part went wrong. I was thinking am I in the correct track or the entire LinkedList part just wrong?
When I tried to run in debug mode, this error message popped up:
Exception thrown at 0x01201FD1 in tut.exe: 0xC0000005: Access violation reading location 0x00000000.
If there is a handler for this exception, the program may be safely continued.
Thanks in advance.
You say that you got the linked list to work wihen the list is defined via the head pointer only. In this set-up, you have to pass a pointer to the head pointer when the list may be updated, and just the head pointer when you only inspect the list without modifying, for example:
int removeNode(ListNode **ptrHead, int index);
ListNode *findNode(ListNode *head, int index);
Here, the head pointer is the handle for the list that is visible to the client code.
The approach with the list struct defines a new interface for the linked list. While the head node is enough, it might be desirable to keep track of the tail as well for easy appending or of the number of nodes. This data can be bundles in the linked list struct.
What that means is that the handling of the nodes is left to the list and the client code uses only the linked list struct, for example:
typedef struct ListNode ListNode;
typedef struct LinkedList LinkedList;
struct ListNode {
int num;
ListNode *next;
};
struct LinkedList {
ListNode *head;
ListNode *tail;
int size;
};
void ll_print(const LinkedList *ll);
void ll_prepend(LinkedList *ll, int num);
void ll_append(LinkedList *ll, int num);
void ll_remove_head(LinkedList *ll);
int main()
{
LinkedList ll = {NULL};
ll_append(&ll, 2);
ll_append(&ll, 5);
ll_append(&ll, 8);
ll_print(&ll);
ll_prepend(&ll, 1);
ll_prepend(&ll, 0);
ll_print(&ll);
ll_remove_head(&ll);
ll_print(&ll);
while (ll.head) ll_remove_head(&ll);
return 0;
}
There's also one difference: In the head-node set-up, the head node might be null. Here, the list cannot be null, it must exist. (Its head and tail members can be null, though.) Here the list is allocated on the stack, its address &ll must be passed to the functions.
In the linked list set-up, the distinction between modifying and read-only access is done via the const keyword:
void ll_print(const LinkedList *ll);
void ll_prepend(LinkedList *ll, int num);
In your example, you take a mixed approach with two independent structures, a head node and a list. That can't work, one single list is described by one struct, pick one.
The advantage to the linked list structure approach is that all required data like head, tail and size are always passed together to a function. You can also hide the implementation from the user by not disclosing the struct members, so that theb user can only work on pointers to that struct.
Finally, here's an example implementation of the above interface for you to play with:
void ll_print(const LinkedList *ll)
{
ListNode *node = ll->head;
while (node != NULL) {
printf("%d ", node->num);
node = node->next;
}
putchar('\n');
}
void ll_prepend(LinkedList *ll, int num)
{
ListNode *nnew = malloc(sizeof *nnew);
nnew->next = ll->head;
nnew->num = num;
ll->head = nnew;
if (ll->tail == NULL) ll->tail = ll->head;
ll->size++;
}
void ll_append(LinkedList *ll, int num)
{
ListNode *nnew = malloc(sizeof *nnew);
nnew->next = NULL;
nnew->num = num;
if (ll->tail == NULL) {
ll->tail = ll->head = nnew;
} else {
ll->tail->next = nnew;
ll->tail = nnew;
}
ll->size++;
}
void ll_remove_head(LinkedList *ll)
{
if (ll->head) {
ListNode *ndel = ll->head;
ll->head = ll->head->next;
ll->size--;
free(ndel);
}
}
I keep getting Segmentation Fault (core dumped) run time error and I can't figure out why.
My code:
struct Node
{
void *next;
void *val;
};
typedef struct Node* NodePtr;
struct List
{
NodePtr head;
};
typedef struct List* ListPtr;
ListPtr create()
{
ListPtr ptr = malloc(sizeof(struct List));
return ptr;
}
int insert(ListPtr list, void *obj)
{
NodePtr newObj = malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
//Cast next as a self referencing Node
newObj->next = (NodePtr) newObj->next;
//Point to beginning of list
NodePtr current = list->head;
if(list->head == NULL)
{
newObj->val = obj;
list->head->next = newObj;
newObj->next = NULL;
return 1;
}
return 0;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int x = 2;
int *p = &x;
ListPtr thing = create();
insert(thing, p);
return 0;
}
The error is here: list->head->next = newObj after some debugging. I thought I had to allocate memory for list->head->next, but when I added the code in for that it still gave me the same error. Am I casting it wrong or not allocating memory correctly? Any help would be appreciated, thanks!
Just put this together, runs fine.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
struct Node {
void *next;
void *val;
};
typedef struct Node* NodePtr;
struct List {
NodePtr head;
};
typedef struct List* ListPtr;
ListPtr CreateList() {
ListPtr ptr = malloc(sizeof(struct List));
return ptr;
}
void Insert(ListPtr list, void *obj) {
// create and initialize new node
NodePtr newObj = malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
newObj->val = obj;
newObj->next = NULL;
//Point to beginning of list
NodePtr curr = list->head;
// Add node to the list
if(curr == NULL) // if no head node, make newObj the head node
{
list->head = newObj;
}
else{ // otherwise traverse the list until you find the last node (the one that points to a null as the next)
while(1) {
if(curr->next != NULL) {
curr = curr -> next;
} else {
curr->next = newObj;
}
list->head = newObj;
newObj->val = obj;
list->head->next = newObj;
newObj->next = NULL;
}
}
}
int main() {
int x = 2;
int *p = &x;
ListPtr thing = CreateList();
Insert(thing, p);
return 0;
}
You check if list->head is NULL and then do some operations with that. Change that to if(list->head != NULL)
{
...
}
At a thought, malloc does not guarantee allocated memory is empty. It's good practice to set all values where they matter after allocation.
list->head is probably not null
also : newObj->next = (NodePtr) newObj->next;
doesn't set to a rational value, it sets to whatever memory was set - were you intending newObj->next = (NodePtr) newObj; ?
list->head should not be referenced if null. list->head->next will only be valid if it's not null.
if you actually want to build a list,
newObj->val = obj;
if (list->head == NULL) { newObj->next = list->head; }
list->head = newObj;
either that or travel down list->head->next chain until next is null, and set that to be newObj->next. If that way then it's possibly a good idea, newObj->next should be set to NULL and not itself.
Might want to figure out how your list will behave - is it circular? does it grow from the head (list->head) or tail (last ->next) ? Do you spot the tail when listObject->next == NULL or when listObject->next == listObject ?
I realize that this answer is mostly stylistic. But I do think that (bad) style and (bad) habits are an (important) part of (bad) programming. Summing it up ...
(in most cases) typedefs are not needed; they just introduce an alias for something that already existed.
[rule of seven] human readers have a limited amount of identifiers ("names") that they can keep track of. This could be 7. Minimising the number of distinct words makes reading easier.
also, the reader has to remember that xPtr and xNode are related (typeof *xPtr === typeof xNode)
when reading source code, keywords and special character tokens (such as operators) don't count as an identifier, since you do not have to remember them. (Syntax-highligting helps, too)
if there is only one way of expressing your program, there is no possibility for errors like iPtr *p; p = (qPtr) malloc (sizeof xNode);
creating yet another struct (+typedefs for it), just to accomodate a root pointer will clobber up your mental namespace even more.
Now a rework of the (intended) code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct node {
struct node *next;
void *payload;
};
struct node *root=NULL;
void initialize() { /* nothing .... */ }
int insert(struct node **pp, void *pv) {
struct node *p;
p = malloc(sizeof *p);
if (!p) { /* handle error */ return -1; }
p->payload = pv;
p->next = *pp;
*pp = p;
return 1; /* inserted one element */
}
int main(void)
{
int i;
i=666;
/* note: this function call will pass a pointer to a local variable `i`
** to the insert() function, which will remember it.
** This is generally a bad idea, to say the least.
*/
insert( &root, &i);
return 0;
}
I keep getting this Segmentation Fault: 11 error and I don't know why.
My Code:
typedef struct Node* NodePtr;
struct Node
{
NodePtr next;
void *val;
};
struct List
{
NodePtr head;
};
typedef struct List* ListPtr;
int compare(void *one, void *two)
{
if(*(int*)one < *(int*)two)
return -1;
else if(*(int*)one > *(int*)two)
return 1;
return 0;
}
ListPtr create()
{
ListPtr blah = malloc(sizeof(struct List));
memset(blah, 0, sizeof(struct List));
return blah;
}
NodePtr scan(NodePtr head, void *obj)
{
NodePtr previous, current;
previous = head;
current = head->next; // Segmentation fault here!!
while(current != NULL && (compare(curry->val, obj) == -1))
{
previous = current;
current = current->next;
}
return previous;
}
int insert(ListPtr llist, void *obj)
{
NodePtr newobj = malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
NodePtr prevNode, nextNode;
prevNode = search(llist->head, obj);
nextNode = prevNode->next;
if((nextNode == NULL) || (compare(nextNode->val, obj) != 0))
{
prevNode->next = newobj;
newobj->next = nextNode;
return 1;
}
else
{
free(newobj);
}
return 0;
}
I thought head was not allocated, so I added malloc in create for blah->head, but still no luck.
I think the error is here after some debugging: current = head->next.
Any help would be appreciated! Thank you for your time!
EDIT: How I call insert:
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
ListPtr list = create();
int x = 2;
int *p = &x;
while(*p != 0)
{
printf("\nEnter a number: ");
scanf("%d", p);
if(*p != 0)
insert(list, p);
}
return 0;
}
You don’t appear to check whether the list is empty when you scan it. However, without a Minimum Complete Verifiable Example that tells us how you called the function, it is impossible to tell for sure what you did.
Update
Now that you have, that seems to be it. You create an empty list and search it inside your insert function. The search function dereferences the zeroed-out pointer in head, causing a segfault.
Try the following: first, check that your pointer is valid in each of your functions before you do anything with it. An empty list should fail every search. Second, for maximum portability, you want to set your head pointer to NULL (since a NULL pointer is not necessarily all-bits-zero on all implementations).
#define SIZE 7000
static char buf[SIZE];
static char *bufptr = buf;
struct node
{
int reg_num;
int val;
char var_name[30];
char var_str[100];
struct node *memroy;
struct node *next;
};
struct node* add(struct node *head, int i)
{
struct node *temp;
if (head == NULL)
{
temp = (struct node *)malloc(sizeof(struct node));
temp->next = NULL;
temp->reg_num = i;
head = temp;
}
else
{
head->next = add(head->next, i);
}
return head;
}
void* malloc(int n)
{
if (buf + SIZE - bufptr >= n)
{
bufptr += n;
return bufptr - n;
}
else
{
return NULL;
}
}
When I run my programm it crashes during the assignment temp->next = NULL.
I think the problem is in my malloc function. I tested it with malloc in libraries and it worked correctly, but I not allowed to use libraries and must write a new malloc function.
You never check the return of your malloc yet you know it can return NULL;.
Check if temp is NULL before doing temp->next = NULL;
My problem don't has relation with kind of pointer and returned value from malloc().I have problem with size of buf[] and by increment of size my problem solved.Tnx from every one.