Trying to implement below code for some assignment but getting an error for malloc array generation "[Error] conflicting types for 'stack'" Any Help ??
Thanks in Advance.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
struct treenode
{
char info;
struct treenode *firstchild;
struct treenode *next;
int flag;
};
typedef struct treenode *NODEPTR;
NODEPTR *stack;
// Trying to create array here
stack=(NODEPTR*)malloc(sizeof(NODEPTR)*20);
int main()
{
printf("YO\n");
return 0;
}
EDIT :
I can't move it to main , as i have to access the stack globally in different functions.
because Stack array gets destroyed when it go to another function.
check here http://ideone.com/5wpZsp ,
When i give static declaration globally it works smoothly, here : http://ideone.com/3vx9fz
You can not call assignment operations at global scope. Try malloc operation in main() instead.
And the type of stack is not a pointer but pointer to pointer. Are you sure about it's declaration ?
Move your initialization of stack to inside of the main method.
EDIT An example showing how the malloc data can persist to other function calls even though malloc is called inside of main.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
struct treenode
{
char info;
struct treenode *firstchild;
struct treenode *next;
int flag;
};
typedef struct treenode *NODEPTR;
NODEPTR *stack;
void test_stack()
{
printf("%p\n", stack);
printf("%d\n", stack[19]->flag);
}
int main()
{
// Trying to create array here
stack=(NODEPTR*)malloc(sizeof(NODEPTR)*20);
stack[19] = (NODEPTR*)malloc(sizeof(struct treenode));
stack[19]->flag = 42;
test_stack();
return 0;
}
Step 1: Move the declaration of stack inside main. There's no reason it should be declared globally:
int main( void )
{
NODEPTR *stack;
...
Step 2: Move the malloc call inside main (you cannot perform an assignment or a function call outside of a function).
Step 3: Drop the cast; it's unnecessary1 and just adds visual clutter.
Step 4: Use sizeof *stack as opposed to sizeof (NODEPTR) in the argument to malloc:
stack = malloc( sizeof *stack * 20 );
The result is the same, but this is easier to read, and avoids maintenance headaches if you ever change the type of stack.
Step 5: free your stack when you're done. Yeah, for this program it doesn't matter, but it's a good habit to get into.
So after all this, your code should read:
int main( void )
{
NODEPTR *stack;
stack = malloc( sizeof *stack * 20 );
...
free( stack );
return 0;
}
Stylistic nit: Hiding pointer types behind typedefs is bad juju IME. Pointer semantics are important, and if the programmer is ever expected to dereference an object of type NODEPTR (either explicitly, as (*node).info, or implicitly, as node->info), then it's usually best to declare that object using pointer declaration syntax, something like
typedef struct treenode Node;
Node *node;
Node **stack;
...
stack[i]->next = node->next;
etc. so the person using your types knows exactly how many levels of indirection are involved and can write their code accordingly (multiple indirection is not hard). If the type is meant to be truly opaque and never directly dereferenced, but just passed around to an API that handles all that, then hiding the pointerness of that type is okay. Otherwise, leave it exposed.
I tend not to typedef struct types for a similar reason, but I suspect I'm an outlier in that regard.
Ahd who broke the code formatter?!
1 - In C, that is; in C++, the cast is required, but if you're writing C++, you should be using new instead of malloc anyway.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
struct treenode
{
char info;
struct treenode *firstchild;
struct treenode *next;
int flag;
};
typedef struct treenode *NODEPTR;
NODEPTR *stack;
int main()
{
stack=malloc(sizeof(NODEPTR)*20);
printf("YO\n");
return 0;
}
This will work.
allocate memory inside(malloc) your main.
There is no need to typecast out put of malloc. for further info see this post
EDIT :
In your comment you mentioned that memory will be destroyed when you move other function.
This is not true. Once you allocate memory using malloc it will not be destroyed until you call free().
So if you want to access the malloc'ed variable in other function pass the variable as argument to other function.
See this example program below
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
char *str;
void passMalloc(char **str);
int main()
{
str = malloc(100 * sizeof(char));
strcpy(str, "GoodMorning");
printf("\nMain before pass : %s\n", str);
passMalloc(&str);
printf("Main after pass : %s\n\n", str);
free(str);
return 0;
}
void passMalloc(char **str)
{
strcpy(*str, "GoodEvening");
printf("Function Def : %s\n", *str);
}
Related
I'm trying to initialize (or create) a linked-list with an empty node pointing to NULL, but it's returning an error and I don't know why. Can somebody help me?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
struct node {
int times;
char name[100];
char number[100];
struct node* next;
};
typedef struct node* node;
void mklist(node* n) {
(*n)->times = 0;
strcpy((*n)->name, "null");
strcpy((*n)->number, "null");
(*n)->next = (node)NULL;
}
int main(void) {
node n;
mklist(&n);
return 0;
}
So node is actually a pointer to a struct node, very confusing
typedef struct node* node;
In main() you declare a pointer and pass a pointer to a pointer to mklist()
node n;
mklist(&n);
In mklist(), n is actually a pointer to a pointer to the struct, so derefencing it, you get a pointer to a struct
void mklist(node* n){
(*n)->times=0;
but nowhere in your code have you allocated memory for an actual struct.
The most straightforward fix with the way your code is currently is to add a malloc()
void mklist(node* n) {
*n = malloc(sizeof(*(*n)));
// check for malloc() failure
(*n)->times = 0;
strcpy((*n)->name, "null");
strcpy((*n)->number, "null");
(*n)->next = (node)NULL;
}
You can do this easily in the global scope:
// nil = &nilObj, which means nil->next == nil.
//
// This way, there's no checking for both 'nil' and 'NULL'!
//
// As a consequence of this last point, you can make passing 'NULL'
// to most list functions invalid: it just means the user didn't
// use mklist() on every list they needed to manually work with.
static struct node nilObj = { 0, "null", "null", &nilObj };
node nil = &nilObj;
void mklist(node *n)
{
*n = nil;
}
As Stephen Docy mentioned, using typedef T *Tname; is generally a bad idea as it hides the fact that you're using a pointer, which can be confusing when you use Tname *n as (*n)->foo (I'd expect to use it as n->foo honestly). Some APIs do this, but they do it in a way that expresses that the variable is a pointer to an object rather than an object: instead of Node, something like NodeRef or NodePtr is used, signifying in the name that it's a pointer to a node, not a node. Apple's Core Foundation API uses names like this (e.g. CFStringRef). I highly suggest adopting a convention similar to this henceforth. The above code I posted might then look something like this:
static struct node nilObj = { 0, "null", "null", &nilObj };
nodeRef nil = &nilObj;
void mklist(nodeRef *n)
{
*n = nil;
}
Hi guys I'm learning C programming. I wanted to write some codes for learning linked list topic but there is a problem. This code about creating linked list with 5 nodes, writing something into 3rd node, printing them to console.
Here is all of my codes:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <memory.h>
struct node{
char *data;
struct node *next;
};
typedef struct node node;
node *root;
void nodeAdd(node *n, int x)
{
node *iter;
iter=root;
for(int i=0;i<x;i++)
{
iter->next = (node*)malloc(sizeof(node));
iter->next->data="0";
iter->next->next=NULL;
iter=iter->next;
printf("Node created.\n");
}
}
void nodeWrite(node *n,char *string,int x)
{
node *temp;
temp=root;
for(int k=0;k<x;k++)
{
temp=temp->next;
}
strcpy(temp->data,string); //HERE IS ERROR
printf("\n");
printf("%s \n",temp->data);
printf("Node writed.");
}
void nodePrint(node *n)
{
while(root->next!=NULL)
printf("%s\n",root->data);
root=root->next;
}
int main(int argc, const char * argv[])
{
root = (node*)malloc(sizeof(node));
nodeAdd(root,5);
nodeWrite(root,"WTF", 3);
nodePrint(root);
return 0;
}
data is an unintialized pointer variable. Initialize with the address of a valid memory that you allocate. That will solve the problem. Now you have udnefined behavior.
What you can possibly do is
Use char array instead of using pointer.
Allocate dynamically the memory.
In case of 1.
struct node{
char data[MAXSTRINGLEN];
struct node *next;
};
In case of 2:
Initially make the pointers point to NULL. So now you can allocate to it like this
temp->data = malloc(sizeof *temp->data*MAXSTRINGLEN);
if( temp->data == NULL)
{
fprintf(stderr,"Error in malloc");
exit(1);
}
Just one point, free the allocated memory when you are done working with it.
Use of the global variable here is not really required here. You can always pass return pointers from memory and assign it to the struct node*. Or yes you can use double pointers. Use of global variable is not needed here.
Clean up code, that are redundant and not required. That makes things readable and less confusing.
The program initially is designed incorrectly and has undefined behavior..
For example the data member data of the node root was not initialized. So its output in the function nodePrint results in undefined behavior. Moreover the function itself is incorrect.
Neither function uses its parameter node *n.
In this statement
strcpy(temp->data,string);
there is an attempt to change the string literal pointed to by the data member temp->data provided that the data member was initialized (as it was pointed above the data member is not initialized for the node root). You may not change a string literal. Any attempt to modify a string literal leads to undefined behavior.
There is no need to declare the node root as a global variable.
Parameters of the function main are not used in the program. So the function should be declared like
int main( void )
I'm trying to get more comfortable building and using linked lists in C, and for the most part I think I have the basics down. However, I am running into problems in regards to Scope, specifically the linkage of a Pointer to a Pointer of structs.
In my linked_list.c implementation I am using a main function to test out and play around with the linked list functions I've built. But the eventual goal is to run Main from another file, and only reference the few functions I'd need externally from a header file.
The implementation I'm using right now DOES work, but it seems to rely on me declaring the struct list** inside my (temporary)) main function.
It's my understanding that if you declare a variable/pointer outside of a block, you can control the linkage to be internal, accessible to other functions in the file, using the static command. What I would like to be able to do is call a function like void initialize_list() from OUTSIDE the program and have it initialize this internally linked list**.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
struct node {
int value;
struct node *next;
};
struct list {
struct node *head;
struct node *tail;
int size; // Maintains current size of list
};
static struct list** work_list;
void dirty_init(void){
struct list* new_list = malloc(sizeof(struct list));
new_list->head = NULL;
new_list->tail = NULL;
new_list->size = 0;
*work_list = new_list;
}
Running my dirty_init function returns a segfault.
The version of code that DOES work is quite similar, but it seems to rely on the **work_list being declared inside of my main function before passing it to initialize_list.
void initialize_list(struct list **out_list){
struct list* my_list = malloc(sizeof(struct list));
my_list->head = NULL;
my_list->tail = NULL;
my_list->size = 0;
*out_list = my_list;
}
int main(void){
int i;
struct list **work_list;
initialize_list(work_list);
}
This is all well and good, but it has the drawback of making my **work_list pointer internally linked to the Main block. Any ideas where I am going wrong trying to get the dirty_init function to work?
This here:
int main(void){
int i;
struct list **work_list;
initialize_list(work_list);
}
can't work. C is pass by value and you pass an uninitialized value, which is then used as a result pointer. Did you mean
int main(void){
int i;
struct list *work_list;
initialize_list(&work_list);
}
instead?
I wanted to make an array of stacks in C, where I should be able to retain individual stacks and their respective information. I currently have the following implementation, which only works for one stack. How can I modify the functions push and pop to achieve multiple stacks each using the same function.
(I was easily able to do this in Java, as I could create a class, but I have no idea in C)
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct node {
int data;
struct node *next;
};
struct node *first = NULL;
void push(int x) {
struct node *newnode = malloc(sizeof(struct node));
newnode->data = x;
newnode->next = first;
first = newnode;
}
int pop() {
int temp = first->data;
first = first->next;
return temp;
}
You have a memory leak in your code in the pop() function. You should free the memory that you have malloc'd.
Taking advice from #Jongware's comments below your question.
Here's a new version of the push() and pop() functions.
#include <stdlib.h>
struct node {
int data;
struct node *prev;
};
void push(struct node **stack, int x) {
if (stack != NULL)
{
struct node *newnode = malloc(sizeof(struct node));
newnode->data = x;
newnode->prev = *stack;
*stack = newnode;
} else
{
// You didn't give me a valid pointer to a stack, so I'm ignoring you!
}
}
int pop(struct node **stack) {
int temp = 0; // This is the default value that is returned when there is an error.
struct node *oldnode;
if (stack != NULL)
{
if (*stack != NULL)
{
oldnode= *stack;
temp = oldnode->data;
(*stack) = oldnode->prev;
free(oldnode);
} else
{
// The stack is empty. I will just ignore you and return the default value for temp.
}
} else
{
// You didn't give me a valid pointer to a stack so I'm ignoring you and returning the default value of 0 for temp!
}
return temp;
}
And here's an example of how to use them:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
struct node *stack1 = NULL, *stack2 = NULL;
int value;
// Push some values onto the stacks
printf("Pushing 7 and then 8 onto stack1\n");
push(&stack1, 7);
push(&stack1, 8);
printf("Pushing 3 onto stack2\n");
push(&stack2, 3);
// Pop and print both stacks
value = pop(&stack2);
printf("Popped %d from stack2\n", value);
value = pop(&stack1);
printf("Popped %d from stack1\n", value);
value = pop(&stack1);
printf("Popped %d from stack1\n", value);
return 0;
}
As for where you should be declaring your stack pointers that is really up to you and how you intend to use them.
Have a read about C variable scope for some options and how you might use them.
Also, I will have to include a warning with declaring these pointers inside functions. In whichever function you declare your pointer you must make sure that you pop everything off the stack before you exit the function, otherwise you will lose the pointer and leak all the allocated memory. If this is not what you want, or you want the pointer to outlive the function then you can declare the pointer globally or pass it around, making sure that everything is popped off the stack before your program exists or loses the pointer.
Another thing that you might want to consider is what happens when you use pop() on an empty stack? The implementation that I have given you simply returns 0 and ignores you. You might want to handle that a little better.
You can only have one stack because you defined it as a global variable:
struct node *first = NULL;
In Java you would have used a class. In C, you can likewise do "object based" programming by defining an abstract data type which holds your instance variables, instead of using global variables:
struct stack {
struct node *first;
};
there are no class features like constructors or destructors, so you write functions to initialize a stack, destroy a stack and so forth. To achieve multiple instantiation, you explicitly pass a stack * argument to each function in the stack module.
You might want to name your functions in some consistent way, like stack_init, stack_cleanup, stack_push and so on.
There are design questions to settle such as: does the caller allocate struct stack, for which you provide stack_init function? Or do you provide a one-step stack_alloc function that allocates and returns a stack? Or perhaps both, so the user can choose performance or convenience?
void stack_init(struct stack *);
void stack_cleanup(struct stack *);
struct stack *stack_alloc(void); /* also calls stack_init on new stack */
void stack_free(struct stack *); /* calls stack_cleanup, then frees */
It's possible to do information hiding in C, whereby you can completely conceal from the client code (which uses the stack module) what a struct stack is.
However, if you provide a stack_init, then the client has to know how large a stack is, since it provides the memory for it. Generally, modules which completely hide an implementation also hide how large it is, and so provide only a stack_alloc and stack_free type interface.
An advantage of that is that client code doesn't have to be recompiled if the stack module is changed and the structure is larger. This is very good if you're writing a widely-used library: it is easy for users to upgrade or possibly downgrade.
However, revealing the implementation allows for more efficient code, since the client has the freedom to choose memory management for stacks. Stacks can be declared as local variables in automatic storage ("on the stack", so to speak), statically as global variables, or packed into arrays.
The user can do things like:
{
struct stack temp_stack;
stack_init(&temp_stack); /* stack is good to go! */
/* ... use stack ... */
stack_cleanup(&temp_stack); /* don't forget to clean up */
}
and things like:
struct stack array_of_stacks[42];
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 42; i++)
stack_init(&array_of_stacks[i]); /* no memory allocation taking place */
All this code has a compile-time dependency of the definition of struct stack; whenever struct stack is touched, it must be recompiled.
Note that if the above struct stack definition is the exact definition for a stack (the only property of a stack is that it has a pointer to a top node which can be null) then, physically speaking, a struct stack * pointer is actually a pointer to a pointer. We can use a typedef name to write the code so that we can use either definition:
/* Alternative "A" */
typedef struct node *stack_t; /* a stack_t type is a pointer to a node */
/* Alternative "B" */
typedef struct stack {
struct node *top;
} stack_t; /* stack_t is a structure containing a pointer to a node */
Either way, the API in terms of stack_t then looks like this:
void stack_init(stack *s);
int stack_push(stack *s, int item);
or whatever. If stack is a pointer (alternative "A" above) then stack *s is a pointer-to-pointer, and so your code will be full of pointer-to-pointer manipulation.
If you're not comfortable with pointer-to-pointer syntax all over the place, then you can give yourself a macro to pretend that it's a structure anyway.
/* Alternative "A" */
typedef struct node *stack_t; /* a stack_t type is a pointer to a node */
#define stack_top(s) (*(s)) /* dereference stack s to obtain the top pointer */
/* Alternative "B" */
typedef struct stack {
struct node *top;
} stack_t; /* stack_t is a structure containing a pointer to a node */
#define stack_top(s) ((s)->top) /* dereference struct pointer to get top pointer */
In the code you can then do things like:
/* push new_node onto stack */
new_node->next = stack_top(s);
stack_top(s) = new_node;
If you consistently use the stack_top accessor, you can now flip the representation of the stack type between alternative "A" and "B" without rewriting any of your code (only recompiling it).
Some nit-picky C programmers will cringe at stack_top(s) = new_node since it looks like a function call is being assigned (which is impossible in C without using macros to bend the language), and prefer a "setter" function for that stack_top_set(s, new_node). That's mostly just outdated, parochial thinking.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
typedef int Item;
#define ItemFormat "%d"
struct node {
Item data;
struct node *next;
};
typedef struct node *Stack;
void push(Stack *st, Item x){
struct node *newnode = malloc(sizeof(struct node));
newnode->data = x;
newnode->next = *st;
*st = newnode;
}
bool isEmpty(Stack st){
return st == NULL;
}
Item pop(Stack *st) {
if(!isEmpty(*st)){
struct node *p = *st;
Item value = p->data;
*st = p->next;
free(p);
return value;
}
fprintf(stderr, "Stack is Empty!\n");
return (Item)0;
}
bool inputItem(Item *x){
int stat;
if(1==(stat=scanf(ItemFormat, x)))
return true;
if(stat == EOF)
return false;
scanf("%*[^\n]");
return false;
}
void printItem(Item x){
printf(ItemFormat, x);
}
int main(void){
Stack st = NULL, array[5] = { NULL };
Item x;
while(inputItem(&x)){
push(&array[1], x);
}
while(!isEmpty(array[1])){
x = pop(&array[1]);
printItem(x);
printf("\n");
}
/*
while(inputItem(&x)){
push(&st, x);
}
while(!isEmpty(st)){
x = pop(&st);
printItem(x);
printf("\n");
}
*/
return 0;
}
The static implemetation of two stacks in a single array in C looks something like this...the stack structure will have two top variables top1 and top2.
struct stack
{
int data[MAX];
int top1,top2;
}s;
top1 is initialized to -1 while top2 is initialized to MAX
Overflow condtitions:
1]
if((s->top1)+1==s->top2)
printf("Stack 1 overflow\n");
2]
if((s->top2)-1==s->top1)
printf("Stack 2 overflow\n");
The underflow conditions become pretty obvious. This method may not be memory efficient since we might run out of storage space in the array but it is the basic fundamentals of multiple stacks in a single array.
I have a interface documented like this:
typedef struct Tree {
int a;
void* (*Something)(struct Tree* pTree, int size);
};
Then as I understand I need to create instance of it, and use Something method to put the value for 'size'.
So I do
struct Tree *iTree = malloc(sizeof(struct Tree));
iTree->Something(iTree, 128);
But it keeps failing to initialize. Am I doing this right?
Howcome the first member of the Something method is pointer to the very same struct?
Can anyone explain please?
Thanks
You have to set Something to something since it is only a function pointer and not a function. The struct you created with malloc just contains garbage and struct fields need to be set before it is useful.
struct Tree *iTree = malloc(sizeof(struct Tree));
iTree->a = 10; //<-- Not necessary to work but you should set the values.
iTree->Something = SomeFunctionMatchingSomethingSignature;
iTree->Something(iTree, 128);
Update
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
struct Tree {
int a;
//This is a function pointer
void* (*Something)(struct Tree* pTree, int size);
};
//This is a function that matches Something signature
void * doSomething(struct Tree *pTree, int size)
{
printf("Doing Something: %d\n", size);
return NULL;
}
void someMethod()
{
//Code to create a Tree
struct Tree *iTree = malloc(sizeof(struct Tree));
iTree->Something = doSomething;
iTree->Something(iTree, 128);
free(iTree);
}
This is a poor man's virtual function. The initial parameter is roughly equivalent to C++'s this pointer in a member function. And you must manually set the function pointers before calling them, whereas C++ virtual functions are set up by the compiler.
The member Tree::Something is never initialized. You allocate space for a Tree, but allocation is different from initialization, and your allocated Tree contains only unmeaningful bits.