In many occasions, we need to modify a linked list drastically so we will sometimes create another linked list and pass it to the old one. For example,
struct node { //let's say we have a linked list storing integers
int data;
node* next;
};
and suppose we already have a linked list storing integers 1,2,3.
node* head; //suppose we already store 1,2,3 in this linked list
node* new_head ; //suppose we make a temporary linked list storing 4,5,6,7
head = new_head; //modifying the original linked list
My Question
If I delete head (the old linked list) before the assignment then the whole program will crash.
Conversely, if I do not delete it, then there will be a memory leak.
Therefore, I am looking for a way to modify the linked list without memory leak.
My attempt
I tried to make a helper function similar to strcpy to do my work.
void passing_node(node*& head1, node* head2){ //copy head2 and paste to head1
node* ptr1 = head1;
for (node* ptr2 = head; ptr2 != nullptr; ptr2 = ptr2->next)
{
if (ptr1 == nullptr){
ptr1 = new node;
}
ptr1->data = ptr2->data;
ptr1 = ptr1->next;
}
}
// note that we assume that the linked list head2 is always longer than head1.
However, I still got a crash in the program and I cannot think of any other way to modify this. Any help would be appreciated.
Easier way to avoid memory leak is to avoid raw owning pointers.
You might use std::unique_ptr (or rewrite your own version):
struct node {
int data = 0;
std::unique_ptr<node> next;
};
You can move nodes.
You can no longer copy nodes (with possible double free issue).
so deep_copy might look like:
std::unique_ptr<Node> deep_copy(const Node* node)
{
if (node == nullptr) return nullptr;
auto res = std::make_unique<Node>();
res->data = node->data;
res->next = deep_copy(node->next.get());
return res;
}
I would suggest preallocating the linked list so it's easy to delete every node in one call. The nodes would then just reference somewhere inside this preallocated memory. For example:
struct Node
{
int value;
Node* next;
};
struct LinkedList
{
Node* elements;
Node* first;
Node* last;
Node* free_list;
LinkedList(size_t size)
{
first = nullptr;
last = nullptr;
elements = new Node[size]{0};
free_list = elements;
for (size_t i = 0; i < size-1; ++i)
free_list[i].next = &free_list[i+1];
free_list[count-1].next = nullptr;
}
~LinkedList()
{
delete[] elements;
}
void Add(int value)
{
if (free_list == nullptr)
// Reallocate or raise error.
// Take node from free_list and update free_list to
// point to the next node in its list.
// Update last node to the new node.
// Update the first node if it's the first to be added.
}
void Free(Node* node)
{
// Search for the node and update the previous and
// next's pointers.
// Update first or last if the node is either of them.
// Add the node to the last place in the free_list
}
};
From here you'll have many strategies to add or remove nodes. As long as you make sure to only add nodes to the allocated elements array, you'll never have any memory leak. Before adding, you must check if the array have the capacity to add one more node. If it doesn't, you either have to raise an error, or reallocate a new the LinkedList, copy over all values, and delete the old one.
It becomes a bit more complicated when the array becomes fragmented. You can use a 'free list' to keep track of the deleted nodes. Basically, a LinkedList of all nodes that are deleted.
Just take notice that my code is incomplete. The basic approach is to create an allocator of some sort from which you can allocate a bulk, use segments of it, and then delete in bulk.
Related
I have been trying to understand memory allocation in C++ by reading some texts and looking stuff up. I have seen often that one should always call "delete" after "new". However, I also see code like this:
void LinkedList::add(int data){
Node* node = new Node();
node->data = data;
node->next = this->head;
this->head = node;
this->length++;
}
In structures like linked lists or stacks.
I have seen some great explanations on SO like:
Why should C++ programmers minimize use of 'new'?
When to use "new" and when not to, in C++?
However I am still confused why one would not call "delete" here for a new Node.
Edit: Let me clarify my question. I understand why not to immediately call delete in the same method. However, in the same code I do not see a matching delete statement for add. I assume that everything is deleted once the program ends, but I am confused that there is no apparent matching delete statement (ie: count all the news in the code, count all the deletes in the code, they do not match).
Edit: Here is the source that I am looking at: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/linked-list-set-2-inserting-a-node/
The code for their linked list:
// A complete working C++ program to demonstrate
// all insertion methods on Linked List
#include <bits/stdc++.h>
using namespace std;
// A linked list node
class Node
{
public:
int data;
Node *next;
};
/* Given a reference (pointer to pointer)
to the head of a list and an int, inserts
a new node on the front of the list. */
void push(Node** head_ref, int new_data)
{
/* 1. allocate node */
Node* new_node = new Node();
/* 2. put in the data */
new_node->data = new_data;
/* 3. Make next of new node as head */
new_node->next = (*head_ref);
/* 4. move the head to point to the new node */
(*head_ref) = new_node;
}
/* Given a node prev_node, insert a new node after the given
prev_node */
void insertAfter(Node* prev_node, int new_data)
{
/*1. check if the given prev_node is NULL */
if (prev_node == NULL)
{
cout<<"the given previous node cannot be NULL";
return;
}
/* 2. allocate new node */
Node* new_node = new Node();
/* 3. put in the data */
new_node->data = new_data;
/* 4. Make next of new node as next of prev_node */
new_node->next = prev_node->next;
/* 5. move the next of prev_node as new_node */
prev_node->next = new_node;
}
/* Given a reference (pointer to pointer) to the head
of a list and an int, appends a new node at the end */
void append(Node** head_ref, int new_data)
{
/* 1. allocate node */
Node* new_node = new Node();
Node *last = *head_ref; /* used in step 5*/
/* 2. put in the data */
new_node->data = new_data;
/* 3. This new node is going to be
the last node, so make next of
it as NULL*/
new_node->next = NULL;
/* 4. If the Linked List is empty,
then make the new node as head */
if (*head_ref == NULL)
{
*head_ref = new_node;
return;
}
/* 5. Else traverse till the last node */
while (last->next != NULL)
last = last->next;
/* 6. Change the next of last node */
last->next = new_node;
return;
}
// This function prints contents of
// linked list starting from head
void printList(Node *node)
{
while (node != NULL)
{
cout<<" "<<node->data;
node = node->next;
}
}
/* Driver code*/
int main()
{
/* Start with the empty list */
Node* head = NULL;
// Insert 6. So linked list becomes 6->NULL
append(&head, 6);
// Insert 7 at the beginning.
// So linked list becomes 7->6->NULL
push(&head, 7);
// Insert 1 at the beginning.
// So linked list becomes 1->7->6->NULL
push(&head, 1);
// Insert 4 at the end. So
// linked list becomes 1->7->6->4->NULL
append(&head, 4);
// Insert 8, after 7. So linked
// list becomes 1->7->8->6->4->NULL
insertAfter(head->next, 8);
cout<<"Created Linked list is: ";
printList(head);
return 0;
}
// This code is contributed by rathbhupendra
The code you cited should delete the nodes at some point. Indeed, that code shows off tons of bad C++ practices. It doesn't delete the nodes because it's bad code.
Oh and BTW: ignore anything on the site you linked to. If there is something useful on that site, it's only by accident.
Generally new does a couple of things. It allocates memory for an object, on the heap (where dynamic memory resides), and initialises an object at the address.
When you have variables in your function like this:
void example(){
int a;
char b;
}
They reside on the stack, and when the function returns, those variables no longer exist. With new you can get memory outside the stack (on the heap). The good thing is that this persists throughout function calls. The bad thing that it persists across function calls. It's good because sometimes array lengths are not known and therefore they can not be allocated on the stack, or you need a large buffer which would not fit on the stack. It's bad because if you forget about it, then it won't go away. It will just sit there taking up memory. delete, basically destructs the object at the address, and then returns the memory to the OS. That's why people say that delete should be called after new.
Luckily in modern c++ you (generally) don't need to use raw pointers and not need to worry about this. std::shared_ptr<T> created by std::make_shared<T,Args...>, and std::unique_ptr<T> created by std::make_unique<T,Args...>. These are wrappers for pointers. std::shared_ptr<T> is just T*, but when everybody loses the pointer to the object, the memory is returned. std::unique_ptr<T> is the same, but only one reference exists.
A std::unique_ptr<T> LinkedList from cppreference:
#include <memory>
struct List {
struct Node {
int data;
std::unique_ptr<Node> next;
Node(int data) : data{data}, next{nullptr} {}
};
List() : head{nullptr} {};
// N.B. iterative destructor to avoid stack overflow on long lists
~List() { while(head) head = std::move(head->next); }
// copy/move and other APIs skipped for simplicity
void push(int data) {
auto temp = std::make_unique<Node>(data);
if(head) temp->next = std::move(head);
head = std::move(temp);
}
private:
std::unique_ptr<Node> head;
};
As to an other reason the use of new should be minimised: Apart from the above issue of potential memory leak, is that it is very expensive (std::make_shared/std::make_unique still has this issue though), as the program needs to ask the kernel to grant it some memory, meaning an expensive system call must be made.
my head pointer is supposed to be null, because I don't want
it to have any value when I make my linked list.
I know that you can't dereference something that is null,
but I just want to point it's next node to something new.
can someone explain how I could point the head node pointer?
void dlist::push_front(int value) {
node *p = new node();
node *tempH = head();
tempH->next = p; //break
/***********************************************************
my head pointer is suposed to be null, because I don't want
it to have any value when I make my linked list.
I know that you can't dereference something that is null,
but I just want to point it's next node to something new.
can someone explane how I could point the head node pointer?
************************************************************/
p->value = value;
p->next = tempH->next;
p->prev = tempH;
p->next->prev = p;
p->prev->next = p;
}
#pragma once
#include <ostream>
class dlist {
public:
dlist() {}
// Implement the destructor, to delete all the nodes
//~dlist();
struct node {
int value;
node* next;
node* prev;
};
node* head() const { return _head; }
node* tail() const { return _tail; }
void push_front(int value);
private:
node* _head = nullptr;
node* _tail = nullptr;
};
in your list constructor, simply set the head pointer to null.
dlist::dlist() {
_head = nullptr;
}
Further, if you end up removing the LAST item in your list, you will need to also make _head = nullptr;
Be sure to check if the head is null before dereferencing.
if(_head == nullptr){
_head = new node(...);
}
Your insert function will be responsible for assigning the first node to the head, in the event that you're adding to an uninitialized list.
If your list needs to be sorted, you will need to account for the head changing in the event that the new node should precede the head node.
The most practical solution here is to just use sentinel nodes for your head and tail. Or, just one sentinel node, that stands in for both. The sentinel nodes' elements can just be left uninitialised, you only need those nodes for the next and prev pointers they contain. To test if you've reached the end of the list, instead of testing for a null pointer, you test whether the pointer points to the sentinel node.
You can just use normal nodes as your sentinels if you expect your list elements to be small, or your lists to be very large. You waste a bit of memory on space for elements that won't be used, but it's probably not a big deal. If you really care about memory efficiency (say, you're writing a library), you can have something like this:
template<typename T> class dlist {
struct node_header {
node_header* next;
node_header* prev;
};
struct node : public node_header {
T element;
};
// Convert a node_header pointer to a node pointer
node* node_from_header(node_header* p) {
return static_cast<node*>(p);
}
};
With this approach, your sentinel node is a node_header and all your actual, element-containing nodes are nodes. Your internal algorithms all work on node_headers, until you need to actually retrieve the element of a node, at which point you use node_from_header() to retrieve the full, element-containing node.
If you absolutely want to not use sentinel nodes, you'll have to rewrite your code to directly use the head pointer, rather than retrieving it through a function, and add special-case code for handling a null head pointer. It's not a pretty option.
I have a class called "node". I link a bunch of node objects together to form a linked list. When the "node" destructor is called, it only deletes the first node. How do I iterate through the entire linked list of nodes and delete each node object?
Here is the class definition:
class Node
{
private:
double coeff;
int exponent;
Node *next;
public:
Node(double c, int e, Node *nodeobjectPtr)
{
coeff = c;
exponent = e;
next = nodeobjectPtr;
}
~Node()
{
printf("Node Destroyed");
}
The destructor is called by invoking delete on the pointer to the first node of the linked node list.
Since you don't know how many nodes there are in a list, if you do not have firm bounds on that it's not a good idea to invoke destructors recursively, because each call uses some stack space, and when available stack space is exhausted you get Undefined Behavior, like a crash.
So if you absolutely want to do deallocate following nodes in a node's destructor, then it has to first unlink each node before destroying it.
It can go like this:
Node* unlink( Node*& p )
{
Node* result = p;
p = p->next;
result->next = nullptr;
return result;
}
Node::~Node()
{
while( next != nullptr )
{
delete unlink( next );
}
}
But better, make a List object that has ownership of the nodes in a linked list.
Of course, unless this is for learning purposes or there is a really good reason to roll your own linked list, just use a std::vector (and yes I mean that, not std::list).
How do I iterate through the entire linked list of nodes and delete each node object?
It would be cleaner if you had a separate class to manage the entire list, so that nodes can be simple data structures. Then you just need a simple loop in the list's destructor:
while (head) {
Node * victim = head;
head = victim->next; // Careful: read this before deleting
delete victim;
}
If you really want to delegate list management to the nodes themselves, you'll need to be a bit more careful:
while (next) {
Node * victim = next;
next = victim->next;
victim->next = nullptr; // Careful: avoid recursion
delete victim;
}
Under this scheme, you'll also need to be careful when deleting a node after removing it from the list - again, make sure you reset its pointer so it doesn't delete the rest of the list. That's another reason to favour a separate "list" class.
I'm trying to learn C++ and there is a small confusion I have.
The text which I am learning from tells me that if I want to delete a node of type const T& I should first create a new pointer of that node type, then delete it using the inbuilt C++ delete[]. However, what happens if I just set the link from the to-be-deleted node's previous element to the to-be-deleted node's next element? Something like:
*p = node.previous;
p-> next = node.next;
Or will this cause a memory leak?
I'm confused because I read somewhere else to never, ever delete pointers willy-nilly, but the example code I am working with has something along the lines of:
Node<T> *p = node-to-be-deleted;
delete p;
What is the best way to delete the node?
Assuming your node looks like this:
struct Node
{
Node* previous;
Node* next;
SomeType data;
};
Then:
*p = node.previous;
p-> next = node.next;
Then YES. This will cause a memory leak.
It also leaves p->next->prev pointing at the wrong node.
I'm confused because I read somewhere else to never, ever delete pointers willy-nilly, but the example code I am working with has something along the lines of:
Yes the best way is to "never delete pointers". But this has to go along with some context. You should not be deleting pointers manually because pointers should be managed by an objects that control their lifespan. The simplest of these objects are smart pointers or containers. But for this situation that would be overkill (as you are creating the container).
As you are creating the container (a list) you will need to do the management yourself (Note C++ already has a couple of lost types std::list for a list of values of type t or boost::ptr_list for a list of pointers to T). But it is a good exercise to try and do it yourself.
Here is an example on code review of a beginner making a list and the comments it generated:
http://codereview.stackexchange.com: Linked list in C++
I hope this helps in explains on how to create and delete objects.
Node* p = new Node; // This is how you allocate a node
delete p; // This is how you delete it
The delete[] operator should be used on dynamically allocated arrays:
Node* nodelist = new Node[ 4 ]; // nodelist is now a (dynamically allocated) array with 4 items.
delete[] nodelist; // Will delete all 4 elements (which is actually just one chunk of memory)
Deleting a Node directly only makes sense if Node implements a destructor to update the previous and next pointers of the surrounding Node instances, eg:
Node::~Node()
{
if (previous) previous->next = next;
if (next) next->previous = previous;
}
Node *p = node-to-be-deleted;
delete p;
Otherwise, you have to update the Node pointers before then deleting the Node in question, eg:
Node *p = node-to-be-deleted;
if (p->previous) p->previous->next = p->next;
if (p->next) p->next->previous = p->previous;
delete p;
With that said, the best approach is to no implement a linked list manually to begin with. In C++, use a std::list container instead, and let it handle these details for you.
void deleteNode( Node * p )
{
Node * temp = p->next;
p->data = p->next->data;
p->next = temp->next;
free(temp);
}
Heres something i did a few months ago.
template <class T>
T LinkedList<T>::remove(int pos)
{
if (pos < 1 || pos > size)
{
throw pos;
}
ListNode * temp;
if (pos == 1)
{
temp=head;
head = head->next;
}
else
{
int i=1;
ListNode * prev = head;
while(i<pos-1)
{
i++;
prev=prev->next;
}
temp = prev->next;
prev->next = (prev->next)->next;
}
--size;
return temp->item;
}
I need to implement an auxilliary function, named copyList, having one parameter, a pointer to a ListNode. This function needs to return a pointer to the first node of a copy of original linked list. So, in other words, I need to code a function in C++ that takes a header node of a linked list and copies that entire linked list, returning a pointer to the new header node. I need help implementing this function and this is what I have right now.
Listnode *SortedList::copyList(Listnode *L) {
Listnode *current = L; //holds the current node
Listnode *copy = new Listnode;
copy->next = NULL;
//traverses the list
while (current != NULL) {
*(copy->student) = *(current->student);
*(copy->next) = *(current->next);
copy = copy->next;
current = current->next;
}
return copy;
}
Also, this is the Listnode structure I am working with:
struct Listnode {
Student *student;
Listnode *next;
};
Note: another factor I am running into with this function is the idea of returning a pointer to a local variable.
The first question you need to ask yourself is what the copy semantics are. In particular, you're using a Student* as node contents. What does copying node contents mean? Should we copy the pointer so that the two lists will point to (share) the same student instances, or should you perform a deep copy?
struct Listnode {
Student *student; // a pointer? shouldn't this be a `Student` object?
Listnode *next;
};
The next question you should ask yourself is how you will allocate the nodes for the second list. Currently, you only allocate 1 node in the copy.
I think you code should look more like:
Listnode *SortedList::copyList(Listnode *L) {
Listnode *current = L;
// Assume the list contains at least 1 student.
Listnode *copy = new Listnode;
copy->student = new Student(*current->student);
copy->next = NULL;
// Keep track of first element of the copy.
Listnode *const head = copy;
// 1st element already copied.
current = current->next;
while (current != NULL) {
// Allocate the next node and advance `copy` to the element being copied.
copy = copy->next = new Listnode;
// Copy the node contents; don't share references to students.
copy->student = new Student(*current->student);
// No next element (yet).
copy->next = NULL;
// Advance 'current' to the next element
current = current->next;
}
// Return pointer to first (not last) element.
return head;
}
If you prefer sharing student instances between the two lists, you can use
copy->student = current->student;
instead of
copy->student = new Student(*current->student);
This is an excellent question since you've done the bulk of the work yourself, far better than most "please do my homework for me" questions.
A couple of points.
First, what happens if you pass in an empty list? You probably want to catch that up front and just return an empty list to the caller.
Second, you only allocate the first node in the copy list, you need to do one per node in the original list.
Something like (pseudo-code (but C++-like) for homework, sorry):
# Detect empty list early.
if current == NULL:
return NULL;
# Do first node as special case, maintain pointer to last element
# for appending, and start with second original node.
copy = new node()
last = copy
copy->payload = current->payload
current = current->next
# While more nodes to copy.
while current != NULL:
# Create a new node, tracking last.
last->next = new node()
last = last->next
# Transfer payload and advance pointer in original list.
last->payload = current->payload
current = current->next
# Need to terminate new list and return address of its first node
last->next = NULL
return copy
And, while you're correct that you shouldn't return a pointer to a local stack variable, that's not what you're doing. The variable you're returning points to heap-allocated memory, which will survive function exit.
I have been trying to do the same thing. My requirements were:
1. Each node is a very basic and simple class (I moved away from the struct model).
2. I want to create a deep copy, and not just a pointer to the old linked list.
The way that I chose to do this is with the following C++ code:
template <class T>
Node <T> * copy(Node <T> * rhs)
{
Node <T> * current = new Node<T>();
Node <T> * pHead = current;
for (Node <T> * p = rhs; p; p = p->pNext)
{
Node <T> * prev = current;
prev->data = p->data;
if (p->pNext != NULL)
{
Node <T> * next = new Node<T>();
prev->pNext = next;
current = next;
}
else
{
prev->pNext = NULL;
}
}
return pHead;
}
This works well, with no errors. Because the "head" is a special case, there is a need for my implementation of a "current" pointer.
The statement
copy->next = current->next
is wrong. You should do
Create the first node copy here
copy->student = current->student;
copy->next = NULL;
while(current->next!=NULL)
{
Create new node TEMP here
copy->next = TEMP;
TEMP->student = current->student;
TEMP->next = NULL;
copy = TEMP;
}
Since you need a copy of the linked list, you need to create a new node in the loop while traversing through the original list.
Listnode *startCopyNode = copy;
while (current != NULL) {
*(copy->student) = *(current->student);
copy->next = new Listnode;
copy = copy->next;
current = current->next;
}
copy->next = NULL;
return startCopyNode;
Remember to delete the nodes of linked list.
#pat, I guess you will get a seg_fault, because you create memory only once. You need to create memory(basically call 'new') for each and every node. Find out, where you need to use the 'new' keyword, to create memory for all the nodes.
Once you are done with this, you need to link it to the previous node, since its a singly linked list, you need to maintain a pointer to the previous node. If you want to learn and should be able to remember all life, don't see any of the code mentioned above. Try to think the above mentioned factors and try to come up with your own code.
As others have pointed out, you need to call new for each node in the original list to allocate space for a copy, then copy the old node to the new one and update the pointer in the copied node.
another factor I am running into with this function is the idea of returning a pointer to a local variable.
You are not returning a pointer to a local variable; when you called new, you allocated memory on the heap and are returning a pointer to that (which of course means that you need to remember to call delete to free it when you are done with the new list, from outside the function).