I'm having trouble reversing my doublely linked deque list (with only a back sentinel) in C, I'm approaching it by switching the pointers and here is the code I have so far:
/* Reverse the deque
param: q pointer to the deque
pre: q is not null and q is not empty
post: the deque is reversed
*/
/* reverseCirListDeque */
void reverseCirListDeque(struct cirListDeque *q)
{
struct DLink *back = q->backSentinel;
struct DLink *second = q->backSentinel->prev;
struct DLink *third = q->backSentinel->next;
while (second != q->backSentinel->next){
back->next = second;
third = back->prev;
back->next->prev = back;
back = second;
second = third;
}
}
But it doesn't seem to work, I've been testing it with a deque that looks like this: 1, 2, 3
The output is: 3 and this process seems to mess up the actual value of the numbers. ie. 2 becomes 2.90085e-309... I think the pointer switching is messed up but I cannot find the problem. And even though it doesn't mean my code is correct; it compiles fine.
Linked structures like deques lend themselves readily to recursion, so I tend to favor a recursive style when dealing with linked structures. This also allows us to write it incrementally so that we can test each function easily. Looping as your function does has many downsides: you can easily introduce fencepost errors and it tends toward large functions that are confusing.
First, you've decided to do this by swapping the pointers, right? So write a function to swap pointers:
void swapCirListDequePointers(
struct cirListDeque** left,
struct cirListDeque** right)
{
struct cirListDeque* temp = *left;
*left = *right;
*right = temp;
}
Now, write a function that reverses the pointers in a single node:
void swapPointersInCirListDeque(struct cirListDeque* q)
{
swapCirListDequePointers(&(q->prev),&(q->next));
}
Now, put it together recursively:
void reverseCirListDeque(struct cirListDeque* q)
{
if(q == q->backSentinel)
return;
swapPointersInCirListDeque(q);
// Leave this call in tail position so that compiler can optimize it
reverseCirListDeque(q->prev); // Tricky; this used to be q->next
}
I'm not sure exactly how your struct is designed; my function assumes that your deque is circular and that you'll be calling this on the sentinel.
EDIT: If your deque isn't circular, you'll want to call swapPointersInCirListDeque(q) on the sentinel as well, so move swapPointersInCirListDeque(q) before the if statement.
If you plan to use the backSentinel after this, you should change that also, since it's now the front of the list. If you have a frontSentinel, you can just add swapCirListDequePointers(&(q->frontSentinel),&(q->backSentinel)); to swapPointersInCirListDeque. Otherwise, you'll have to pass in the first node along with q and set q->backSentinel to that.
If it's a doubly linked list, you shouldn't need to change any pointers at all. Just swap over the payloads:
pointer1 = first
pointer2 = last
while pointer1 != pointer2 and pointer2->next != pointer1:
temp = pointer1->payload
pointer1->payload = pointer2->payload
pointer2->payload = temp
pointer1 = pointer1->next
pointer2 = pointer2->prev
If by back sentinel you mean the last pointer (as in no first pointer is available), then you need to step backwards throw the deque to find it. It's hard to believe however that this would be the case since it would be a fairly inefficient deque (which is supposed to be a double ended queue).
You've been given a couple of suggestions already; here's another possibility:
// Assumes a node something like:
typedef struct node {
struct node *next, *prev;
int data;
} node;
and also assumes a couple of variables (globals for the moment) named head and tail that point to the head and tail of the deque, respectively.
void reverse() {
node *pos = head;
node *temp = pos->next;
head = tail;
tail = pos;
while (pos != NULL) {
node *t = pos->prev;
pos->prev = pos->next;
pos->next = t;
pos = temp;
if (temp)
temp = temp->next;
}
}
At least for the moment, this does not assume any sentinels -- just NULL pointers to signal the ends of the list.
If you're just storing ints in the deque, Paxdiablo's suggestion is a good one (except that creating a doubly-linked node to hold only an int is a massive waste). Assuming that in reality you were storing something large enough for doubly-linked nodes to make sense, you'd also prefer to avoid moving that data around any more than necessary, at least as a general rule.
Related
I'm trying to just reverse a singly linked list, but with a bit of a twist. Rather than having the pointer to the next node be the actual next node, it points to the pointer in that next node.
struct _Node
{
union
{
int n;
char c;
} val;
void *ptr; /* points to ptr variable in next node, not beginning */
int var;
};
typedef struct _Node Node;
I know how to reverse a normal singly linked list and I think I have the general idea of how to go about solving this one, but I'm getting a segfault when I'm trying to access head->ptrand I don't know why.
Node *reverse(Node *head)
{
Node * temp;
Node * prev = NULL;
while(head != NULL)
{
temp = head->ptr + 4; /* add 4 to pass union and get beginning of next node */
head->ptr = prev;
prev = head;
head = temp;
}
return prev;
}
Even if I try and access head->ptr without adding 4, I get a segfault.
The driver that I have for this code is only an object file, so I can't see how things are being called or anything of the sort. I'm either missing something blatantly obvious or there is an issue in the driver.
First, I'll show you a major problem in your code:
while (head) // is shorter than while(head != NULL)
{
// Where does the 4 come from?
// And even if: You have to substract it.
// so, definitively a bug:
// temp = head->ptr + 4; /* add 4 to pass union and get beginning of next node */
size_t offset_ptr = (char*)head->ptr - (char*)head;
// the line above should be moved out of the while loop.
temp = head->ptr - offset_ptr;
Anyways, your algorithm probably won't work as written. If you want to reverse stuff, you are gonna have to work backwards (which is non-trivial in single linked lists). There are two options:
count the elements, allocate an array, remember the pointers in that array and then reassign the next pointers.
create a temporary double linked list (actually you only need another single reversely linked list, because both lists together form a double linked list). Then walk again to copy the next pointer from your temporary list to the old list. Remember to free the temporary list prior to returning.
I tried your code and did some tweaking, well in my opinion your code had some logical error. Your pointers were overwritten again and again (jumping from one node to another and back: 1->2 , 2->1) which were leading to suspected memory leaks. Here, a working version of your code...
Node *reverse(Node *head)
{
Node *temp = 0;
//Re-ordering of your assignment statements
while (head) //No need for explicit head != NULL
{
//Here this line ensures that pointers are not overwritten
Node *next = (Node *)head->ptr; //Type casting from void * to Node *
head->ptr = temp;
temp = head;
head = next;
}
return temp;
}
I am understanding recursion and so I tried writing reverse a linked list program. I have written the below function but it says segmentation error (core dumped).
void reverse(){
if (head -> next == NULL){
return;
}
reverse (head -> next);
struct node *q = (struct node*) malloc (sizeof(struct node));
q = head -> next;
q -> next = head;
head -> next = NULL;
}
Please can someone guide me. Thank you.
Shouldn't reverse take an argument? And please be aware that you cannot change a pointer in a function and have that be a lasting change. That is, in a C function, the only lasting changes are those that use *var = something.
Recursion is a way of thinking that's gained by practice. So congratulations on your attempt. It's not correct, but don't be discouraged.
Here are two ways to go about the problem.
Your goal is to subdivide it into a smaller version of itself plus a (hopefully easy and fast to compute) incremental step that takes a solution to the smaller version to a complete solution. This is the essence of recursive thinking.
First try: Think of the list as a head element plus the "rest of the list." I.e.,
L = empty or
= h . R
where h is the head element R is the rest of the list, and dot . is joining a new element to the list. Reversing this list consists of reversing R, then appending h on the end:
rev(L) = empty if L is empty
= rev(R) . h otherwise
This is a recursive solution because we can call the reverse function recursively to solve the slightly smaller problem of reversing R, then add a little work to append h, and that gives us the complete solution.
The problem with this formulation is that appending h is more expensive than you'd like. Since we have a singly linked list with only a head pointer, it's time consuming: traverse the whole list. But it will work fine. In C it would be:
NODE *rev(NODE *head) {
return head ? append(head, rev(head->next)) : NULL;
}
NODE *append(NODE *node, NODE *lst) {
node->next = NULL;
if (lst) {
NODE *p;
for (p = lst; p->next; p = p->next) /* skip */ ;
p->next = node;
return lst;
}
return node;
}
So how to get rid of the bad performance? It's frequently the case that different recursive formulations of a problem have different efficiencies. So some trial and error is often involved.
Next try: Think about the computation in terms of dividing the list into two sublists: L = H T, so rev(L) = rev(T) + rev(H). Here plus + is list concatenation. The key is that if I know rev(H) and want to add a new element at its head, the element to add is the first element in T. If this seems fuzzy, let H = [a, b, c] and T = [d, e]. Then if I already know rev(H) = [c, b, a] and want to prepend the next element at the head, I want d, which is the first element of T. In our little notation, you can write this observation just so:
rev(H + (d . T)) = rev(T) + ( d . rev(H) )
So this looks very good. In both cases (getting the head of T and moving it to the head of rev(H)), I'm only interested in the head of the list, which is very efficient to access.
Of course if T is empty, then rev(H) = rev(L). This is the answer!
Writing this as recursive procedure.
NODE *rev(NODE *t, NODE *rev_h) {
if (t) { // if t has some elements
NODE *tail = t->next; // save the tail of T
t->next = rev_h; // prepend the head to rev(H)
return rev(tail, t); // recur to solve the rest of the problem
}
return rev_h; // otherwise T is empty, so the answer is rev(H)
}
At the start, we don't know anything at all about rev(H), so T is the whole list:
NODE *reversed_list = rev(list, NULL);
The next thing to note is that this function is tail recursive: the recursive call is executed just before the function returns. This is good! It means we can easily rewrite it as a loop:
NODE *rev(NODE *t, NODE *rev_h) {
recur:
if (t) { // if t has some elements
NODE *tail = t->next; // save the tail of T
t->next = rev_h; // prepend the head to rev(H)
rev_h = t; // "simulate" the recursive call
t = tail; // by setting both args
goto recur; // and going back to the start
}
return rev_h; // otherwise T is empty, so the answer is rev(H)
}
You can always do this transformation with tail-recursive calls. You should think hard about why this works.
Now the goto is easily rewritten as a while loop, and we can make rev_h a local variable initialized to NULL, since that's all the initial call does:
NODE *rev(NODE *t) {
NODE *rev_h = NULL;
while (t) { // while t has some elements
NODE *tail = t->next; // save the tail of T
t->next = rev_h; // prepend the head to rev(H)
rev_h = t; // "simulate" the recursive call
t = tail; // by setting both args
}
return rev_h; // otherwise T is empty, so the answer is rev(H)
}
An in-place linked list reverser that needs only a small constant amount of space!
And look! We never had to draw funny box and arrow diagrams or think about pointers. It "just happened" by careful reasoning about how to subdivide the problem into smaller instances of itself, the essence of recursion. It's also a nice way to see that loops are just a special kind of recursion. Cool, no?
I am assuming that you have something like the followings predefined in your .c file
typedef struct node node_t;
struct node {
int some_data;
node_t *next;
};
/* Your linked list here */
typedef struct {
node_t *head;
node_t *foot; /* to keep track of the last element */
} list_t;
In your function, there are a few mistakes you made
not providing any input arguments
access head->next when the program has no idea where to find head
Hence, resulting in the most frustrating error in C -- segmentation fault!
Instead, you should try the following:
void reverse(list_t *mylinkedlist){
if (mylinkedlist->head->next == NULL) {
return;
}
/* do something */
}
Good day guys, im new here to C and am trying to learn linked lists. I been trying to swap 2 nodes from within a linked list but so far have been having trouble getting it to work. The code I been trying to use causes an endless circular loop, but I don't think it is because of the if or while statement.
Take a look? Any pointers here? Help would be greatly appreciated.
Basically, the code uses a user input to search for a node based on the data inside, then it should swap the node with the data inside with the next node. Been at this for 3 hours, can anybody help? Thanks!
/conductor is the name im using of the pointer for the current node/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct node {
int x;
struct node *next;
struct node *prev;
};
struct node *root;
struct node *conductor;
struct node *counter;
struct node *newnode;
struct node *back;
struct node *swapper;
struct node *swappee;
struct node *blanker;
int add = 0;
int initialization = 0;
int query = 0;
int swap ()
{
printf("enter data to search from within the nodes: ");
fflush(stdin);
scanf("%d", &query);
conductor = root;
while ( conductor->next != 0)
{
if(conductor->x == query)
{
printf("\n%d\n", query);
swapper = conductor;
swappee = conductor->prev;
conductor = swappee;
conductor->next = swapper;
break;
}
else
{
conductor = conductor->next;
}
}
mainMenu ();
}
A double linked list (like the one you have) is basically an array of node, each node pointing to its neighbors. Let's say we have nodes -A-B-C-D- (A-B means that A points to B and B points to A). Let's say you want to swap B and C. You have to make 4 changes:
Make A point to C
Make C point to B and A
Make B point to D and B
make D point to B
You make only the second and the third change. So, you need to add A->next = B and D->prev=C. I hope it is clear enough.
Also, you should not fflush input streams.
If you want to swap the data:
if (conductor->x == query) {
int temp = conductor->x;
if (conductor->next)
conductor->x = conductor->next->x;
conductor->next->x = temp;
}
}
Typically that is what you will want to do. If you have a structure with several members instead of the 1 int, swapping the pointers may seem less messy in theory, but it isn't, primarily due to the fact that you must test for existence of a next/previous node so often. In truth, you'd probably want a pointer to a separate structure in such a case.
Given three nodes — previous, current, and next, pointing to current->prev, current, and current->next respectively — you must update at most 6 pointers:
next->prev = previous
previous->next = next
current->prev = next
current->next = next->next
next->next = current
current->next->prev = current
Step 2 is not necessary if previous is NULL.
Step 7 is unnecessary if current->next is NULL.
The entire thing is unnecessary if next is NULL.
If you want to swap with the previous node instead of the next, exchange any instance of the variable previous with the variable next and vice-versa as well as exchanging any instance of ->prev with ->next and vice-versa.
Overall, this requires a fair bit of branching code, which can be slow. This is why it is usually better to swap the data rather than messing with the pointers. It gets even messier when you want to swap with the previous node and you only have a singly-linked list that points to the next node because you must store yet another pointer for the equivalent of previous->prev, assuming previous exists.
I'm having trouble understanding a piece of C code that represents a linked list structure. The skeleton of the struct looks like this:
struct r{
r *next;
r **prev;
data *d;
}
struct r *rlist;
rlist can be filled by calling the following function: (skeleton only)
r* rcreate(data *d){
struct r *a = xmalloc(sizeof(*r))
a->d = d;
a->next = rlist;
a->prev = &rlist;
if (rlist)
rlist->prev = &a->next;
rlist = a;
return a;
}
How do I go about using this data structure? e.g. how to traverse rlist ?
Edit: here is the function for deleting a node in the linked list
void rdestroy(struct r *a){
if (a->next){
a->next->prev = a->prev;
}
*a->prev = a->next;
destroy(a->d); /* destroy is defined elsewhere */
}
Double prev pointer seems to allow traversing list in one direction only, while allowing easy deletion (because even though you can't access the previous element (easily), you can access the next pointer of previous element, and set it to new correct value when deleting a node.
Without seeing other related functions, it's hard to see why it is done this way. I've not seen this done, and can't immediately think of any really useful benefit.
I think this allows having simpler node deletion code, because node does not need to care if it first or not, because node's prev pointer will always have non-NULL value to a pointer it needs to modify when deleting itself. And same simplicity for insertion before a current node. If these operations are what dominate the use pattern, then this could be seen as minor optimization, I suppose, especially in older CPUs where branches might have been much more expensive.
How to traverse list
This was the question, right? You can only traverse it forward, in a very simple manner, here's a for loop to traverse entire list:
struct r *node;
for (node = rlist ; node ; node = node->next) {
// assert that prev points to pointer, which should point to this node
assert(*(node->prev) == node);
// use node
printf("node at %p with data at %p\n", node, node->d);
}
Example insertion function
This example insertion function demonstrates how insertion before a node needs no branches (untested):
struct r *rinsert(struct r *nextnode, data *d) {
// create and initialize new node
struct r *newnode = xmalloc(sizeof(struct r));
newnode->d = d;
newnode->next = nextnode;
newnode->prev = nextnode->prev;
// set next pointer of preceding node (or rlist) to point to newnode
*(newnode->prev) = newnode;
// set prev pointer of nextnode to point to next pointer of newnode
nextnode->prev = &(newnode->next);
return newnode;
}
There's no good reason to have r ** next in that structure. It's for a double linked list.
So if this thing is created you have it assigned
thisList = rcreate("my data")
now you could start with traversing it
while (thisList->next)
thisList = thisList->next.
...
Your code has many syntactical errors in it, probably because (as you say) it is a "skeleton," so it is hard to parse what the author (whether it was you or someone else) actually intended this code to do.
A simple (doubly) linked list structure looks like this:
struct node {
struct node *next, *prev; // pointers to the adjacent list entries
int data; // use whatever datatype you want
};
struct node *list = NULL; // the list starts empty
void add_entry(int new_data) {
struct node *new_entry = malloc(sizeof(struct node));
// note that in the above line you need sizeof the whole struct, not a pointer
new_entry->data = new_data;
new_entry->next = list; // will be added to the beginning of the list
new_entry->prev = NULL; // no entries currently front of this one
// in general a NULL pointer denotes an end (front or back) of the list
list->prev = new_entry;
list = new_entry; // now list points to this entry
// also, this entry's "next" pointer points to what used to
// be the start of the list
}
Edit: I'll say that if you want us to help you understand some code that is part of a larger program, that you did not write and can't modify, then please post the relevant code in a format that is at least syntactical. As others have said, for example, the use of prev in the code you posted is indecipherable, and it isn't clear (because there are other similarly confusing syntactical problems) whether that was in the original code or whether it is an error introduced in transcription.
Yang, I am not sure how comfortable you are with pointers in general. I suggest taking a look at few other linked-list implementations, it might just do the trick.
Take at look at this Generic Linked List Implementation.
I was trying to reverse a linked list, however whenever I execute the following function, I get only the last element. For example, if the list contained 11,12,13 earlier. After executing the function, it contains only 13. Kindly point out the bug in my code
void reverselist() {
struct node *a, *b, *c;
a = NULL;
b = c = start;
while (c != NULL) {
c = b->next;
b->next = a;
a = b;
b = c;
}
start = c;
}
Doesn't your loop guard insure that start is null?
If you aren't using start to identify the first element of the list, then the variable you ARE using is still pointing to what WAS the first element, which is now the last.
c is a helper pointer.
void reverselist()
{
struct node *a, *b, *c;
a=NULL;
b=start;
while(b!=NULL)
{
c=b->next
b->next=a;
a=b
b=c
}
start=a;
}
// You should assume that Node has a Node* called next that
// points to the next item in a list
// Returns the head of the reversed list if successful, else NULL / 0
Node *reverse( Node *head )
{
Node *prev = NULL;
while( head != NULL )
{
// Save next since we will destroy it
Node *next = head->next;
// next and previous are now reversed
head->next = prev;
// Advance through the list
prev = head;
head = next;
}
return previous;
}
I would have made a prepend function, and done the following:
struct node* prepend(struct node* root, int value)
{
struct node* new_root = malloc(sizeof(struct node));
new_root->next = root;
return new_root;
}
struct node* reverselist(struct node* inlist)
{
struct node* outlist = NULL;
while(inlist != NULL) {
struct node* new_root = prepend(outlist, inlist->value);
outlist = new_root;
inlist = inlist->next;
}
return outlist;
}
Have not tested this, but guess you grasp the idea of it. Might be just your variable names, which don't describe anything, but I think this approach is cleaner, and easier to understand what actually happens.
EDIT:
Got a question why I don't do it inplace, so I'll answer it here:
Can you do it inplace? Are you sure you don't wish to keep the
original list?
Do you need to do it inplace? Is the malloc to time consuming/is this a performance critical part of your code? Remember: premature optimization is the root of all evil.
Thing is, this is a first implementation. It should work, and not be optimized. It should also have a test written before this implementation is even thought of, and you should keep this slow, un-optimized implementation until the test passes, and you have proved that it's to slow for your use!
When you have a passing unit test, and proven the implementation to be to slow, you should optimize the code, and make sure it still passes the test, without changing the test.
Also, is it necessary inplace operations which is the answer? What about allocating the memory before reverting it, this way you only have one allocation call, and should hopefully get a nice performance boost.
This way everyone is happy, you have a cleaner code and avoid the risk of having Uncle Bob showing up at your door with a shotgun.