I'm trying to creating linear linked list recursively with c language,
but keep sticking from here and the code is not working with the error "Linker Tools Error LNK2019". Sadly i can't understand what's the matter. Here is my code.
Thanks for your big help in advance.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct node
{
char num; //Data of the node
struct node *nextptr; //Address of the next node
};
typedef struct node element;
typedef element *link;
link head;
void displayList(); // function to display the list
int main()
{
char s[] = "abc";
link stol(s);
{
link head;
if (s[0] == '\0')return(NULL);
else {
head = (link)malloc(sizeof(element));
head->num = s[0];
head->nextptr = stol(s + 1);
return(head);
}
}
printf("\n\n Linked List : To create and display Singly Linked List :\n");
printf("-------------------------------------------------------------\n");
displayList();
return 0;
}
void displayList()
{
link tmp;
if (head == NULL)
{
printf(" List is empty.");
}
else
{
tmp = head;
while (tmp != NULL)
{
printf(" Data = %d\n", tmp->num); // prints the data of current node
tmp = tmp->nextptr; // advances the position of current node
}
}
}
You redefine a link object called head in your main() function. It hides the global head variable.
Removing the definition inside main would fix your problem, but you should consider passing a link* as a parameter to your displayList function in any case.
I've just noticed this statement return(head); in main(). You program exits prematurely as a result as well.
Everytime I look at your app, I find more issues. If I were you, I'd start by creating a function that adds a node to the list. It's much easier to add new nodes to the front of the list, so you should try that first. Try adding to the tail once you get this running. Adding to the tail is very similar, but you have to 'walkthe list first to get to the last element, exactly as you already do indisplayList()` Another way is keeping the address of the last node* you've added to the list. Like I said, it adds a bit of complexity, so get it working with addToHead first.
void addToHead(link* l, node* n)
{
n->nextptr = l->nextptr;
l->nextptr = n;
}
in your main, you can allocate one new node at a time, as you already do with malloc(). Initialize its contents num with an integer, and let addToHead deal with the pointer stuff. Your use of pointers is terrible, but lists are quite easy, and addToList pretty much shows what can and what should be put in pointers - namely other pointers.
You can remove almost everything in main() before the first printf. You'll have to
start loop:
write a prompt so the user knows what to do using printf()
read input from user using scanf("%d", &n), or equivalent.
break from the loop if user enters a negative value.
malloc() a new node
set its data num = n
call addToHead to add the node.
Loop until user enters an empty string, or -1.
That should take about 8 to 10 lines of code. if in doubt, you will easily find documentation on scanf, with google or on http://en.cppreference.com/w/c.
Okay this question may sound stupid to the amateur programmers . But seriously this is bothering me and a solemn answer to this doubt of mine is welcomed. I have just started to take my first ever course in data structures. And what is bothering me is this:
Assuming C is used,
//Implementing a node
struct Node
{
int data;
struct *Node;
};
Now while creating a node why do we use the dynamic memory allocation technique where we use malloc(). Can't we just create a variable of type ' Struct Node '.
i.e. something like:
struct Node N1;
//First node - actually second where !st Node is assumed to be Head.
struct Node *Head = &N1;
struct Node N2;
N2.(*Node) = &N1;
Well some parts of my code may be incorrect because I am only a beginner and not well versed with C. But by know you may have understood what I basically mean. Why don't we create variables of type Node of an Array of type Node to allocate memory t new nodes why get into the complexity of dynamic memory allocation?
First off, you have an error in how you declare your struct. struct * by itself does not denote a type. You have to give the full type name:
struct Node
{
int data;
struct Node *Node;
};
You can certainly use local variables as above to make a linked list, however that limits you to a fixed number of list elements, i.e. the ones you explicitly declare. That would also mean you can't create a list in a function because those variables would go out of scope.
For example, if you did this:
struct Node *getList()
{
struct Node head, node1, node2, node3;
head.Node = &node1;
node1.Node = &node2;
node2.Node = &node3;
node3.Node = NULL;
return &head;
}
Your list would be restricted to 4 elements. What of you needed thousands of them? Also, by returning the address of local variables, they go out of scope when the function returns and thus accessing them results in undefined behavior.
By dynamically allocating each node, you're only limited by your available memory.
Here's an example using dynamic memory allocation:
struct Node *getList()
{
struct Node *head, *current;
head = NULL;
current = NULL;
// open file
while (/* file has data */) {
int data = /* read data from file */
if (head == NULL) { // list is empty, so create head node
head = malloc(sizeof(struct Node *));
current = head;
} else { // create new element at end of list
current->next = malloc(sizeof(struct Node *));
current = current->next;
}
current->data = data;
current->Node = NULL;
}
// close file
return head;
}
This is psedo-code that doesn't go into the details of reading the relevant data, but you can see how you can create a list of arbitrary size that exists for the lifetime of the program.
If these variables are local, defined inside a function's scope (i.e. stored on the stack), you shouldn't do this, because accessing them after leaving their scope will result in undefined behavior (their contents will likely be overwritten as you call other functions). In fact, any time you return a pointer to a local, stack based variable from your function, you are doing the wrong thing. Given the nature of C, this is problematic since nothing will warn you you are doing something wrong, and it will only fail later when you try to access this area again.
On the other hand, if they are declared as global variables (outside any other function), then you are simply limited by the number of variables declared that way.
You can potentially declare many variables, but keeping track of which one is "free" for use will be painful. Sure, you can even go a step further and say you will have a global preallocated array of nodes to prevent using malloc, but as you are doing all this you are only getting closer to writing your own version of malloc, instead of sticking to the existing, dynamic one.
Additionally, all preallocated space is wasted if you don't use it, and you have no way of dynamically growing your list in runtime (hence the name dynamic allocation).
Here is some good reasons to use dynamic memory
When you declare node struct Node N1;this node will store on stack memory. After scope of the node that will get destroy auto.But in case of dynamic you have handle to free the memory when you done.
When you have some memory limitation.
When you don't know the size of array then dynamic memory allocation will help you.
One issue could be that you cannot use another function to add a new node to your list.
Remember that automatic variables - like the ones created by struct Node node100; - have scope only inside the function in which they are defined. So when you do something like this:
int main()
{
struct Node *head;
/* Some code there you build list as:
head ---> node1 ---> node2 --> .. ---> node99
*/
/* Add a new node using add_node function */
add_node(head, 555);
/* Access the last node*/
}
void add_node(struct Node *head, int val)
{
/* Create new node WITHOUT using malloc */
struct Node new_node;
new_node.data = val;
/* add this node to end of the list */
/* code to add this node to the end of list */
/* last_element_of_list.next = &new_node*/
return;
}
Now you think that you have added a new node to the end of the list. But, unfortunately, its lifetime ends as soon as the add_node function returns. And when you try to access that last node in your main function your program crashes.
So, to avoid this situation you will have put all your code in one single function - so that the lifetime of those nodes do not end.
Having all your code in ONE function is bad practice and will lead to many difficulties.
This was one situation that asks for a dynamic memory allocation, because, a node allocated with malloc will be in scope untill it is freed using free, and you can put code that do different things in different functions, which is a good practice.
You don't have to use dynamic memory to create a linked list, although you definitely don't want to create separate variables for each node. If you want to store up to N items, then you'd need to declare N distinct variables, which becomes a real pain as N gets large. The whole idea behind using a linked list is that it can grow or shrink as necessary; it's a dynamic data structure, so even if you don't use malloc and free, you're going to wind up doing something very similar.
For example, you can create an array of nodes at file scope like so:
struct node {
int data;
struct node *next;
};
/**
* use the static keyword to keep the names from being visible
* to other translation units
*/
static struct node store[N]; /* our "heap" */
static struct node *avail; /* will point to first available node in store */
You the initialize the array so each element points to the next, with the last element pointing to NULL:
void initAvail( void )
{
for ( size_t i = 0; i < N - 1; i++ )
store[i].next = &store[i + 1];
store[N - 1].next = NULL;
avail = store;
}
To allocate a node for your list, we grab the node avail points to and update avail to point to the next available node (if avail is NULL, then there are no more available nodes).
struct node *getNewNode( void )
{
struct node *newNode = NULL;
if ( avail ) /* if the available list isn't empty */
{
newNode = avail; /* grab first available node */
avail = avail->next; /* set avail to point to next available node */
newNode->next = NULL; /* sever newNode from available list, */
} /* which we do *after* we update avail */
/* work it out on paper to understand why */
return newNode;
}
When you're done with a node, add it back to the head of the available list:
void freeNode( struct node *n )
{
n->next = avail;
avail = n;
}
We're not using dynamic memory in the sense that we aren't calling mallic or free; however, we've pretty much recapitulated dynamic memory functionality, with the additional limitation that our "heap" has a fixed upper size.
Note that some embedded systems don't have a heap as such, so you'd have to do something like this to implement a list on such systems.
You can write a singly linked list with out malloc , but make sure the implementation is done in main. but what about writing program for traversing , finding least number ,etc . these struct node variables will go out of scope .
struct node{
int a;
struct node* nextNode;
};
int main()
{
struct node head,node1,node2;
head.a=45;
node1.a=98;
node2.a=3;
head.nextNode=&node1;
node1.nextNode=&node2;
node2.nextNode=NULL;
if(head.nextNode== NULL)
{
printf("List is empty");
}
struct node* ptr=&head;
while(ptr!=NULL)
{
printf("%d ",ptr->a);
ptr=ptr->nextNode;
}
}
I am pretty new to C and I was wondering if the order of elements in a struct matter.
I have the following struct:
struct list
{
struct list_el *head;
int size;
}
I use this to make a linked list. The head points to the first element and the size shows the amount of elements in the list.
I have also have the following function to initialize the list.
typedef struct list list;
list* list_init()
{
list *list = malloc(sizeof(list));
if(list)
{
list->head = NULL;
list->size = 0;
return list;
}
return NULL;
}
The program compiles fine, without any errors, warnings or notes, but when I run the program using valgrind it says I have an invalid write of size 4 on the line in the list_init() function where I assign 0 to list->size. I have the same invalid read/write every time I access the size variable. I have no idea why. Also when I switch the two struct elements around (declare size first and then head) I get the invalid write on the line where I assign NULL to head and then the size variable is used just fine. Can anybody explain me why this happens and how I can fix it?
Last note: the struct as it is shown here is defined in an header file while the function is in the C file. Not sure if this is important.
You named the variable with the same name as the type, so sizeof(list) is implemented as the size of the variable (pointer), not the size of the struct. The struct has a pointer and a integer, so the size will be larger than a pointer, so access to not allocated place occurred.
Rename the variable.
example:
list *list_init(void)
{
list *list_data = malloc(sizeof(list));
if (list_data)
{
list_data->head = NULL;
list_data->size = 0;
return list_data;
}
return NULL;
}
Can somebody please explain what this code with pointers does:
while(terminate== 0)
{
s->value=s->next->value;
if ((s->next->next)==NULL)
{
free(s->next);
s->next=NULL;
terminate= 1;
}
s=s->next;
}
where s is passed as a parameter as : set_el* s and having this structure below:
typedef struct set_el
{
int value;
struct set_el* next;
} set_el;
In case of NULL input it will cause a segmentation fault since s->value is illegal.
On a list of size 1 it will similarly fail because s->next->value is illegal.
On a list with a loop (for instance a>b>a...) it will loop endlessly because s->next->next will never be NULL
Finally on a linked list of size 2 or above it will traverse the list coping the value of the next node to the current node and delete the last node.
Effectively it will 'remove' the first node in the list in a very roundabout way. (We free up the last node memory but we copy the values up the list. The new list is 1 node shorter and without the value in the first node).
I need to make a program that has (at most) 50 linked lists. Basically, my program generates some messages and based on a indicator that comes in the front of my string, I need to put the message in the right linked list.
I don't know if it is clear enough but I will try to show part of my code (the important part). The function I made to add a new element (on the top) of the linked list is the following:
void InsertLL (News p, char M[]) {
char * text = malloc(strlen(M)+1);
strcpy(text, M);
News s,t;
t = malloc(sizeof(struct List));
t-> Text = text;
s = p;
p = t;
p-> next = s;
}
My struct List (the type of the elements of my lists) contains a char pointer (called text) and a pointer to the next element of the list.
Simulating my program, suppose that I received a message that needs to be put in the linked list where the begin is pointed by the pointer p[0]. So I create a new element (forget the case that the list is empty, I already made this one) and add in the top of my list using the function I've shown.
Now, suppose that I received another message that needs to be put in the next pointer p[1]. If I print p[0] -> Text, I get the text of p[1]->Text.
I mean, if I add a new element in the list pointed by p[i], all the previous texts p[i] -> Texts gets the new text of this new element. I have no idea what am I doing wrong.
I don't know if it is enough to help me, if more information is needed, just tell me.
Problem with your code is you are not maintaining the list of nodes. you are overwriting the same node again and again.
Algo:
If no node then create one.
If nodes are present then navigate to end node.(You can use tail
pointer for quicker access).
Append the node at the end.
Creating Node:
Declare a node type pointer.
Allocate memory to it.
Update the content of the node.
Set the next pointer of the node to null.
Add this node to end of the list.
ex. inserting node 3 in the list of node 1 and node 2.
This is the general approach that you can use
typedef struct node{
int val; //you can use your text here
struct node* next;
}NODE;
struct node* head=0;
int addNode(int v){
if(head==0){ //checking for empty node.
struct node* n=malloc(sizeof(NODE));
n->val=v;
head=n;
}
else{
struct node* temp=head;
while(temp->next != 0) //Navigating till end
{
temp=temp->next;
}
struct node* n=malloc(sizeof(NODE)); //allocating memory
n->val=v; //you need to use strcpy for string here.
temp->next=n; //adjusting pointers
n->next=0;
}
}
You can check this demo created by me for Double linked List http://ideone.com/s6TtUX