In function given below, I simply delete the head-pointer of the list and set head pointer to nullptr (im setting it nullptr because in my print function,I check for nullptr for head node, and ask user to create list first if head-node is nullptr).
void del_list(stud* &orig_head)
{
cout << "Deleting entire list..." << endl;
delete orig_head;
orig_head = nullptr;
}
I have a question regarding the way I choose to delete the list, since im not clearing each node of list, im simply clear the head pointer, what will happen to all the other nodes? Will this approach create a memory leak ?
Edit:
Im not using OOP to implement linked list,im implementing linked list using struct and couple of functions.
I like to handle this problem recursively:
void deleteNode(Node * head)
{
if(head->pNext != NULL)
{
deleteNode(head->pNext)
}
delete head;
}
If we have a list of 5 items:
head->pNext->pNext->pNext->pNext->NULL;
Then, the function will first get called for head, then for each pNext until the last one. When we reach the last one, it will skip deleting the next one (since it's null) and just delete the last pNext. Then return and delete the list from back to front.
This is assuming that each node's pNext is initialized to NULL. Otherwise, you'll never know when you've reached the end of the linked list.
Your code will cause memory leak. To delete it correctly, traverse the list and while traversing delete each node separately. And finally make head pointer to point to NULL value. You can have a look at the following code.
void deleteList(struct Node** head_ref)
{
struct Node* current = *head_ref;
struct Node* next;
while (current != NULL)
{
next = current->next;
free(current);
current = next;
}
//Now make head_ref point to null
*head_ref = NULL;
}
Related
I'm stuck on a linked list destructor for my class. This is what I have here:
LinkedList::~LinkedList()
{
LinkedList *forward = nullptr;
LinkedList *current = this;
//iterate through list, deleting each element as we go
while (current != nullptr)
{
//set next pointer to current's next
forward = current->next;
delete current; //delete the current memory
current = forward; //reset current to next's pointer
}
}
When I run it, I get a seg fault. I only want to delete just one node from my linked list. Is that possible? Also, I wasn't given a "head" pointer as I was used to from other lists, so I used "this" instead, does that work?
Aka - the .cpp is finding the spot in the linked list to delete, reorganizing the next pointers around it, and then deleting the node (which calls this destructor)
(when I run my program with an empty destructor, it prints out fine, but of course there are memory leaks)
Any help is appreciated!
by definition delete calls LinkedList::~LinkedList, so you have several (in fact infinite) calls to it because of the loop calling delete, so you access to already deleted element with an undefined behavior
just do
LinkedList::~LinkedList()
{
if (next != nullptr)
delete next;
}
or just
LinkedList::~LinkedList()
{
delete next; // delete on nullptr does nothing
}
even personally I prefer to compare to nullptr first
I argee with bruno.
Besides, when you want to delete a node and you don't have the pointer to head, you need a double-linked list.
The double-linked list has two pointers to its prev and next node.
when you need to delete a node, like this:
ListNode* p;
if(p->pre)
p->pre->nxt = p->nxt;
if(p->nxt)
p->nxt->pre = p->pre;
p->nxt = p->pre = NULL;
delete p;
I'm having a problem in a function that deletes an element in a singly linked list. The element needs to be deleted conditionnaly with the function ShouldDelete().
I haven't found a similar request in C++ in the forums so any help would be appreciated. It seems that the following code does not work 100% of the time.
void SinglyLinkedList::DeleteObjects(Node *pStartPtr)
{
Node *pPtr = pStartPtr;
Node *temp;
while(pPtr != nullptr)
{
temp = pPtr->next;
if (pPtr->ShouldDelete())
{
delete pPtr;
pPtr = temp;
if(temp != nullptr)
{
pPtr->next = temp->next;
}
}
pPtr = temp;
}
}
Any thoughts ?
Thanks!
As a general C++ advice, I would use std::list instead of a DIY list implementation, but since I wrote quite some list logic myself in the old C-days, I'll give it a go.
There are 2 essential problems with your code.
First of all, whenever removing an element from a single-linked list, you should set the next pointer of the previous element to the next of the deleted one. You can do something like this:
Node *previousNode = …;
while(pPtr != nullptr)
{
Node *nextNode = pPtr->next;
if (pPtr->ShouldDelete())
{
delete pPtr;
previousNode->next = nextNode;
}
else
{
previousNode = pPtr;
}
pPtr = nextNode;
}
Notice that no specific if-tests within the for-loop on nullptr are needed. You should tell the previous node that it now points to the next of the deleted one. If there is no next one, the previous->next will just point to a nullptr, indicating the end of the list.
The second problem is that you don't have any clear 'start of the list'. In my example code above, it becomes quite hard to indicate what the previousNode is. Is it a nullptr? But what if we remove the first element?
You could easily add logic here to indicate keep track of the first element, initialize previousNode to nullptr, and if the first is deleted, just don't set previousNode->next' and keep previousNode equal tonullptr` in that case, but what about the caller? How can the caller know that the first element has been deleted and the list now starts later.
My preferred solution is to have a separate List struct/class, and keep the start of the list (the first Node) as a member in the List struct/class. Instead of passing the startNode to the function, you should pass the List instance.
The code in the while-loop now becomes a bit longer, since you need to adapt previousNode->next=nextNode to this:
if (previousNode)
previousNode->next = nextNode;
else
list->firstNode = nextNode;
If you don't want to introduce a new List struct/class, you could also return the new firstNode as return value from your function, like this:
if (previousNode)
previousNode->next = nextNode;
else
startNode = nextNode;
…
return startNode;
Notice that this second approach only works if the caller if the function is also the one maintaining the list, and there are no other places pointing to the startNode.
In any case, if multithreading is involved, you probably want a decent List class with a kind of mutex (ideally std::list decorated with a mutex).
I'm attempting to print the nodes in a linked list (forwards direction).
It's defined as follows:
struct Node {
string val;
Node* next;
Node* prev;
};
struct Stew {
Node* first;
Node* last;
};
Where Stew has two special pointers, one pointing to the first element, and one to the last.
I'm positive that what I attempted is correct, but it's actually not.
void print (const Stew& q, char direction) {
assert (!isEmpty(q));
{
Node* current = new Node;
current = q.first;
cout << current -> val;
while((current -> next) != NULL)
{
current = current -> next;
cout << (current -> val);
}
delete current;
}
I know there's a logic mistake in there, but I can't seem to pinpoint it. Any help would be appreciated.
Why do you do not read answers on your question? I already showed you how to print the list in the direct and reverse order. See here.
Implementing a push function in c++
I think your problem might be that you are treating your current pointer like it is an object. Current is a pointer that simply points to another object in memory. Hence your line Node *current = new Node is meaningless and you are losing that Node in memory. Your problem is probably the last line where you delete current. Current is pointing to the last item in your list and when you call delete you are freeing the memory current points to. Hence you are deleting the last object in your list. You only need to use delete when you are creating an object in memory, and current should not be a new item it should be a pointer to existing memory.
First:
Node* current = new Node;
That is totally unnecessary. You don't want to create a new node from the heap. All you want to do is point current node to the head node:
Node* current = q.first;
Then assuming that current is a valid node, and the next pointer will either point to the next valid node or NULL to denote the end of the list, your while() loop is starting off wrong. It should be something like this:
while(current != NULL)
{
cout << current->val;
current = current->next;
}
And of course, remove the call to "delete" at the end.
I am done with insertion, search in circular linked list but for removal I am getting compiler errors...
Following is my structure for nodes.
struct node
{
int p_data;
struct node* p_next;
node(node* head, int data)
{
p_next = head;
p_data = data;
}
explicit node(int data)
{
p_next = nullptr;
p_data = data;
}
};
node* remove_circular(node* head, node* target)
{
if (head == target->p_next)
{
delete head;
return nullptr;
}
auto next_pointer = target->p_next;
target->p_data = next_pointer->p_data;
target->p_next = next_pointer->p_next;
delete target->p_next;
return target;
}
and in main function I call
head = remove_circular(head, head);
head = remove_circular(head, temp);
this is to remove head element and another element that temp points to.
But I am getting errors
Anybody has any idea to remove one element from circular list??
I changed it to delete target->p_next;
but now it deletes everything in the list.
Any idea???
This is how a circular linked list works:
Each node points to the next in line, and the tail of the list points to the header node. That's the difference from a circular linked list to a regular linked list (which, in the case above, would make 37 point to a terminator null).
In the case of your list having only one object, then it should look something like this:
So, as you can see, there is no object pointing to null anywhere, yet it happens on your code with your explicit constructor (which will run if I write node n = node(12)).
I suggest you take a look at this link to have a better understanding of how your algorithm should look like.
Once you resolve your compiler error, you are still going to have algorithmic issues. I suggest you draw a circular list on paper and think about the steps required to remove an element. Consider all the cases, for example: empty list, list of 1 item, element not in the list, etc.
You need to consider several things.
1.) the case of an empty list
if(head == nullptr){//Empty list case
return nullptr;
}
2.) The target to be removed is the head node and this is the only node in the list.
if (head == target && target->p_next == head){
create a temp node with the data value of target
target = nullptr;//Since nothing points to target now it is for all intents and purposes deleted from the list but the data is still there so you can do something with it. I assume this is necessary because you return a node *.
return the temp node
}
3.) Create a loop that iterates through the entire list. You have something that would only delete the next node which works if you have a two item list and target was the second item.
auto next_pointer = head->p_next;//could not be target->p_next as this assumed
while (next_pointer->p_next != target){//This while loop traverses the list rather than just deleting the next entry.
4.)Inside you loop add a check to see if the list has been traversed and target was never found.
if (next_pointer->p_next == head){
return nullptr;
}//end IF
5.) Inside the loop add the else case which means target was in an arbitrary location in the list. Since I gave you the rest I'll leave you to get this part. It's not hard just a few lines longer than the statements above.
I have a basic linked list problem that I have attempted to solve below. I would appreciate any inputs on my approach, correctness of the algorithm (and even coding style). The problem calls for a function that deletes all occurrences of an int in a circular linked list and returns any node from the list or NULL (when the list is null).
Here's some C++ code that I have so far:
struct Node{
Node* next;
int data;
};
Node* deleteNode(Node* &node, int num){
if(!node){
return NULL;
}
Node* given = node;
Node* del;
while(node->next != given){
if(node->next->data == num){
del = node->next;
node->next = node->next->next;
delete del;
}
node = node->next;
}
//Check if the first node needs to be deleted, with variable node pointing to last element
if(given->data == num){
node->next = given->next;
delete given;
}
return node;
}
The delete node; should be delete del;.
Also, use Node* node as parameter, instead of Node* &node which will prevent non-lvalues from passing in.
p.s. Forgot a semicolon after struct definition? :)
Without following all your logic I can see at a glance this code cannot work.
You are checking for the input list being empty and that's the only case in which your code returns NULL. But what happens if you are passed a list in which all elements must be deleted?
This problem also has a subtlety in it. To check if you completed a circular list you need to compare to the first address to see if you got linked back to the start. However if this element has been deleted then by C++ standard you're not even allowed to use its address in a comparison.
To avoid making two passes over the elements to be deleted one possible trick is to "break the loop" when starting iteration so you can check for NULL instead of checking for the address of the starting node.