I am writing an Ordered Linked List class definition (OLList). I have written the assignment operator function, but when I try to test it by chaining assignment operations, the program gets caught in the while loop of the OLList::copy function. I know this because I tested using console prints.
//OLList.h
struct Node {
ListItem item;
Node *next;
};
class OLList {
public:
OLList& OLList::operator =(const OLList& rhs)
{
if (this != &rhs) {
destroy();
copy(rhs);
}
return *this;
}
void OLList::destroy()
{
Node *current_node = this->headM;
Node *next_node;
while(current_node->next != nullptr)
{
next_node = current_node->next;
delete(current_node);
current_node = next_node;
}
return;
}
void OLList::copy(const OLList& source)
{
Node *new_node, *current_node;
Node *current_source_node = source.headM;
this->headM->item = source.headM->item;
current_node = this->headM;
while(current_source_node->next != nullptr)
{
new_node = new(Node);
current_node->next = new_node;
current_node = current_node->next;
current_source_node = current_source_node->next;
current_node->item = current_source_node->item;
}
return;
}
}
Below is the code used to test the class. I have made sure that the print() function works fine so that's definitely not an issue.
//main.cpp
int main()
{
OLList the_list;
the_list.insert(1);
the_list.insert(2);
OLList second_list;
second_list.insert(3);
second_list.insert(4);
OLList third_list;
third_list.insert(5);
third_list.insert(6);
third_list = second_list = the_list;
third_list.print();
}
When it is compiled and run, the program never terminates as it is caught in the loop mentioned above.
Your destroy() method will fail if headM is nullptr. You should be using while(current_node != nullptr) instead of while(current_node->next != nullptr). But more importantly, it doesn't reset headM to nullptr after destroying the list. So after operator= calls destroy(), headM is no longer in a valid state for copy() to use.
Your copy() method is similarly not checking if either source or target headM are nullptr. But more importantly, it assumes the target list is empty beforehand, otherwise it leaks memory, if it does not crash outright (per above). And frankly, it simply is not coded correctly in general to copy one list to another.
So, your code is invoking undefined behavior, this anything could happen.
Like #PaulMcKenzie stated in comments, you really should be using a proper copy constructor instead (and a destructor - and since you are clearly using C++11 or later, a move constructor and move assignment operator, too - see the Rule of 5). Your assignment operator can then be implemented using your copy constructor (and likewise for move assignment).
Try something more like this:
struct Node {
ListItem item;
Node *next = nullptr;
Node(const ListItem &value) : item(value) {}
};
class OLList {
private:
Node *headM = nullptr;
public:
OLList() = default;
OLList(const OLList &src)
{
Node *current_source_node = src.headM;
Node **current_node = &headM;
while (current_source_node)
{
*current_node = new Node(current_source_node->item);
current_node = &((*current_node)->next);
current_source_node = current_source_node->next;
}
/* alternatively:
Node *current_source_node = src.headM;
while (current_source_node) {
insert(current_source_node->item);
}
*/
}
OLList(OLList&& src)
{
src.swap(*this);
}
~OLList()
{
Node *next_node;
while (headM)
{
next_node = headM->next;
delete headM;
headM = next_node;
}
}
void clear() {
OLList().swap(*this);
}
OLList& operator=(const OLList& rhs)
{
if (this != &rhs) {
OLList(rhs).swap(*this);
}
return *this;
}
OLList& OLList::operator=(OLList&& rhs)
{
OLList(std::move(rhs)).swap(*this);
return *this;
}
void swap(OLList &other) {
std::swap(headM, other.headM);
}
void insert(const ListItem &value) {
...
}
void print() const {
...
}
...
};
Related
i need to code a linked list for university in c++, mostly to practice coding iterators.
I tested it with some basic cases and it works but after i pass it in valgrind and the test server for the program i get a list of different errors. Maybe somebody can help me not to despair.
(At the end i will append the error list)
template <typename T = float>
class ForwardList
{
struct Node
{
/// Constructs a Node from a data value and a link to the next element.
Node(const T &data, Node *next) : data{data}, next{next} {}
/// A Node owns all nodes after it, so it deletes them on destruction
~Node() { delete next; }
//Performs a deep copy of the Node and all Nodes after it. Bad practice but we got it like that
Node *clone() const
{
if (next == nullptr)
{
return new Node{data, nullptr};
}
else
{
return new Node{data, next->clone()};
}
}
T data;
Node *next;
};
public:
ForwardList() : head(nullptr) {}
/// Copy constructor performs a deep copy of the other list's Nodes
ForwardList(const ForwardList &other)
{
head = other.head->clone();
}
/// Destructor makes sure that all Nodes are correctly destroyed
~ForwardList()
{
while (head->next != nullptr)
{
Node *tmp = head;
head = head->next;
delete tmp;
}
delete head;
}
/// Copy assignment operator uses the copy-and-swap idiom to make a safe
/// assignment
ForwardList &operator=(ForwardList other)
{
swap(*this, other);
return *this;
}
/// Add an element to the front of the list.
void push_front(const T &value)
{
std::cout << "Num: " << numberOfNodes << std::endl;
Node *item = new Node(value, nullptr);
if (head==nullptr)
{
head = item;
}else
{
item->next=head;
head = item;
}
numberOfNodes++;
}
/// Remove the first element of the list. Calling this function on an empty
/// list is undefined behavior. When implementing this function, be careful
/// to delete the one and only the one element that is removed.
void pop_front()
{
Node *item;
item = head->next;
delete head;
head = item;
numberOfNodes--;
}
/// Get a reference to the first element of the list
/// (const and non-const version)
T &front()
{
return head->data;
}
const T &front() const
{
return head->data;
}
/// Return true is the list is empty
bool empty() const
{
return numberOfNodes == 0 ? true : false;
}
std::size_t size() const
{
return numberOfNodes;
}
friend void swap(ForwardList &l, ForwardList &r)
{
Node *tmp = l.head;
l.head = r.head;
r.head = tmp;
}
private:
Node *head;
size_t numberOfNodes = 0;
};
And now the fun part (i will put it on pastebin because its pretty long):
https://pastebin.com/4JAKkJtP
Your issue is that ~Node tries to delete its next, and you also try to walk the list in ~ForwardList. By deleting ~Node(), you let ForwardList handle cleanup and everything works.
The clue here is that valgrind reported use after free, meaning something was deleting a pointer twice. That was a clue to look at everything that deletes a Node* (or really, delete in general).
I'm trying to write a function for the deletion of a node in a linked list , given a double pointer to the head and a pointer to the node to be deleted. (the node to be deleted will not be the tail node)
this is what I have tried:-
public:
int value;
Node* next;
};
/*
headPtr is a reference to the head node(i.e. pointer to pointer) and
deleteNodePtr is the node which is to be deleted. You can see the Node definition above.
It is guaranteed that deleteNodePtr will not point to the last element.
*/
void deleteNode(Node** headPtr, Node* deleteNodePtr) {
Node* current;
current=*headPtr;
if (*headPtr==deleteNodePtr){
*headPtr=deleteNodePtr->next;
//delete current;
return;
}
else {
Node* prev = current;
while(current->next!=deleteNodePtr){
prev = current;
current=current->next;
}
prev->next =current->next;
//delete current;
return;
}
return;
}
I can see multiple things:
1 - In your while condition you are not checking that current is valid:
while(current->next!=deleteNodePtr){
prev = current;
current=current->next;
}
2- What probably is happening to you now: the deleteNodePtr points to the second element in the list, so you never enter to the while loop which means the prev == current which means that you are assigning current->next = current->next.
A solution for this would be:
void deleteNode(Node** headPtr, Node* deleteNodePtr) {
Node* current;
current = *headPtr;
if (current == deleteNodePtr) {
current = deleteNodePtr->next;
delete current;
}
else {
Node* prev = current;
current = current->next;
while (current!= nullptr && current != deleteNodePtr) {
prev = current;
current = current->next;
}
if(current!=nullptr)
{
prev->next = current->next;
delete current;
}
}
return;
}
3- You never checks if headPtr is valid, it couldn't be.
4- It's more a suggestion in the stylish thing rather than a code problem, so if you don't share this point of view, you can freely ignore it. At the very begin you assign *headPtr to current, but instead using current for further usage, you use headPtr. It would be much clear instead, if you always use current:
Original:
Node* current;
current=*headPtr;
if (*headPtr==deleteNodePtr){
*headPtr=deleteNodePtr->next;
//delete current;
return;
}
Suggestion:
Node* current;
current=*headPtr;
if (current==deleteNodePtr){
current=deleteNodePtr->next;
//delete current;
return;
}
This appears at first blush to be a C-style linked list written in C++. It's hard to say for sure since we don't have a bigger picture of your code. A C++ linked list would at least put these functions in a class, and not have a global Node.
The node is what's called an implementation detail. It helps us write the list, but users of the list class should not be able to declare their own nodes, nor should they be aware that nodes exist. Hopefully people using your class aren't calling this delete function explicitly.
Users of your List class might/should (depends) prefer to have iterators available to them. If anything writing iterators for your containers will allow them to be used with range-based for loops. Since your linked list appears to be singly linked, your iterators can only move forward. I also wrote my class with an iterator as I imagine it will help prevent copy/paste homework submissions in most cases.
Now to your function. Per my comment, passing the head as a double pointer makes no sense. Not once do you use it as a double pointer; you always de-reference it. So cut out the middle-man and pass it a node pointer from the get-go.
There's a case that's guaranteed not to happen, and that's that deleteNodePtr will never be the last node. That sounds bad. People can want to delete the last node, but they're allowed and no justification is given.
There's no code to catch an attempt to delete on an empty list.
Your specific issue seems to lie here:
while(current->next!=deleteNodePtr){
prev = current;
current=current->next;
}
You break out of the loop when current->next is the node to be deleted, and not current. You end up deleting the wrong node (current, which is 1 before deleteNodePtr), and that's likely going to cause issues down the line. For instance, if the second node is supposed to be deleted, you end up deleting your head, and that breaks stuff. I imagine that removing the ->next from your Boolean condition would fix the issue. I can't provide a deeper resolution without seeing more of your code.
=== Optional reading ===
Here's an extremely stripped down linked list written as a C++ class. You can run this code here: https://godbolt.org/z/7jnvje
Or compile it yourself.
#include <iostream>
// A simple linked list for integers
class List {
public:
List() = default;
~List();
// List(const List& other); // Copy ctor needed for Rule of 5
// List(List&& other) noexcept; // Move ctor needed for Rule of 5
void push_back(int val);
class iterator;
iterator begin();
iterator end();
iterator find(int val);
void erase(iterator it);
void clear();
// friend void swap(List& lhs, List& rhs); // Not Rule of 5; aids Rule of 5
// List& operator=(List other); // Assignment operator needed for Rule of 5
/*
* Quick note on Rule of 5 functions.
* If your class deals with heap-allocated resources, certain functions become
* required. The only one I included was the destructor. The signature of my
* assignment operator is different than you might see, but the reason is
* it's written to take advantage of the copy/swap idiom.
* https://stackoverflow.com/a/3279550/6119582
*/
private:
// Data
struct Node {
int value = 0;
Node *next = nullptr;
Node(int val) : value(val) {}
};
Node *m_head = nullptr;
Node *m_tail = nullptr;
// Functions
Node *find_node(int val);
};
class List::iterator {
public:
iterator(Node *loc) : location(loc) {}
iterator &operator++();
int operator*();
bool operator==(const List::iterator &rhs);
bool operator!=(const List::iterator &rhs);
private:
Node *location;
};
// List Implementation
List::~List() { clear(); }
void List::push_back(int val) {
if (m_tail) {
m_tail->next = new Node(val);
m_tail = m_tail->next;
return;
}
m_head = new Node(val);
m_tail = m_head;
return;
}
List::iterator List::begin() { return iterator(m_head); }
List::iterator List::end() { return iterator(nullptr); }
List::iterator List::find(int val) { return iterator(find_node(val)); }
void List::erase(iterator it) {
// Emtpy list or end()
if (!m_head || it == end())
return;
Node *toDelete = find_node(*it);
// Deleting head
if (toDelete == m_head) {
m_head = m_head->next;
delete toDelete;
return;
}
// Deleting tail
if (toDelete == m_tail) {
Node *walker = m_head;
while (walker->next != m_tail) {
walker = walker->next;
}
m_tail = walker;
delete m_tail->next;
m_tail->next = nullptr;
return;
}
// Delete any middle node; by moving value until it is the tail, then
// deleting the tail
while (toDelete->next) {
toDelete->value = toDelete->next->value;
if (toDelete->next == m_tail) {
m_tail = toDelete;
}
toDelete = toDelete->next;
}
delete toDelete;
m_tail->next = nullptr;
}
void List::clear() {
while (m_head) {
Node *tmp = m_head;
m_head = m_head->next;
delete tmp;
}
m_tail = nullptr;
}
List::Node *List::find_node(int val) {
if (!m_head) {
return nullptr;
}
Node *walker = m_head;
while (walker && walker->value != val) {
walker = walker->next;
}
return walker;
}
// List iterator implementation
List::iterator &List::iterator::operator++() {
location = location->next;
return *this;
}
int List::iterator::operator*() { return location->value; }
bool List::iterator::operator==(const List::iterator &rhs) {
return location == rhs.location;
}
bool List::iterator::operator!=(const List::iterator &rhs) {
return !(*this == rhs);
}
// Free function
// NOTE: Should take list by const reference, but I didn't add the necessary
// code for that. I'm not passing by value because I also left out Rule of 5
// code that is otherwise required.
// NOTE 2: Could also be templatized and made more generic to print any
// container, but that's outside the scope of this answer.
void print(List &list) {
for (auto i : list) {
std::cout << i << ' ';
}
std::cout << '\n';
}
int main() {
List list;
for (int i = 1; i <= 10; ++i) {
list.push_back(i);
}
print(list);
list.erase(list.find(1));
print(list);
list.erase(list.find(10));
print(list);
list.erase(list.find(6));
print(list);
auto it = list.begin();
for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i) {
++it;
}
list.erase(it);
print(list);
list.erase(list.find(25)); // Bogus value; could throw if so desired
print(list);
}
Erasing is made much easier with a doubly-linked list, but we don't have one. My erase function makes some checks and handles the head and tail situations individually. For any node in the middle of the list, I don't bother deleting that node specifically. What I do instead is shuffle the value to be deleted to the tail of the list, and then delete the tail.
My comments indicate some things that were left out. I also didn't mark any functions as const. My iterator does not satisfy all requirements of a ForwardIterator. People can probably find other things I left out. I have a couple reasons for this. Mainly that this is quick and dirty code, and I prefer to not provide the temptation of a copy/paste solution.
It would be nice if all C++ instructors would actually teach C++, though. This form of linked list should not be taught in a C++ class anymore.
So i have a Linked list implementation of my own and it can successfully keep integers and call them when needed with overloaded [] operator but when it comes to storing a class in my linked list, it seems that i can't call the class appropriately (using the same [] operator).
Called functions and members of my Linked List;
#include <iostream>
#include <assert.h>
template<typename T>
struct node {
T data;
node<T>* next;
};
template<typename T>
class Vectem {
private:
node<T>* head;
node<T>* last;
int lenght;
public:
void insert(T value) {
last->next = new node<T>;
last = last->next;
last->data = value;
last->next = NULL;
if (isEmpty()) {
head = last;
}
lenght++;
}
node<T>* search(int indx) {
node<T>* current;
current = head;
int count=0;
while (current != NULL) {
if (count == indx) {
break;
}
current = current->next;
count++;
}
return current;
}
T& operator [](int indx) {
assert(indx >= lenght - 1);
T result;
result = search(indx)->data;
return result;
}
};
And here is the main function and the class that i try to store;
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
#include <string>
#include "VectemLibrary.h"
class word {
public:
std::string value;
int count;
word(std::string value, int count): value(value),count(count) {
}
word() {
value = "NOT ASSIGNED";
count = 0;
}
word(const word& w1) {
value = w1.value;
count = w1.count;
}
~word() {
std::cout << "Word Destroyed" << std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
Vectem<word> wordContainer;
word newWord("hello", 1);
wordContainer.insert(newWord);
std::cout << wordContainer[0].value;
}
Visual studio gave me the expection with this message at the last line where i call the first member of linked list with [];
Exception thrown at 0x7A0CF3BE (ucrtbased.dll) in Top 10 words.exe: 0xC0000005: Access violation reading location 0xCCCCCCCC.
I think that my lack of experience with pointers may have caused the problem but if you see something that i can't, Please enlighten me.
There are other problems with the code you posted as well (e.g. isEmpty() is not declared or defined), but I'll focus on the issue you explicitly mentioned.
In your operator:
T& operator [](int indx) {
assert(indx >= lenght - 1);
// You declare this variable on the stack
T result;
result = search(indx)->data;
// And then you return this variable by reference; this is not okay
return result;
}
As mentioned in my code comments (and by #Johnny Mopp in his comment to your post), you shouldn't (can't) return a reference or pointer to a variable declared within the returning function and constructed on the stack. Anything on the stack will be destroyed once the function call ends, so any returned pointers or references to such variables will be dangling references; using said pointers or references will result in undefined behavior.
So you don't want to return a reference to a stack-allocated variable like result; you want to return a reference to the data within the node itself (which is allocated on the heap by insert()), as it will still be a valid reference after the function returns:
return search(indx)->data;
There are several problems with your code, but the most important is that you are not initializing the head, last, or lenght members of Vectem at all. An Access Violation error at address 0xCCCCCCCC is a good indication that uninitialized memory is being accessed, as some compilers/setups fill uninitialized memory with 0xCC bytes, thus head and last are initially 0xCCCCCCCC in your case.
You need to add appropriate constructors to Vectem (as well as a destructor, a copy constructor, and a copy assignment operator, per the Rule of 3), eg:
template<typename T>
class Vectem {
private:
node<T>* head;
node<T>* last;
int lenght;
public:
Vectem() : head(NULL), last(NULL), lenght(0) {}
Vectem(const Vectem &src) : head(NULL), last(NULL), lenght(0)
{
// copy src's data to *this as needed ...
}
~Vectem()
{
// cleanup *this as needed ...
}
Vectem& operator=(const Vectem &rhs)
{
if (&rhs != this) {
// clear *this, and copy rhs's data to *this, as needed ...
}
return *this;
}
...
};
Or, in C++11 and later, you can initialize the members directly in their declarations (also, be sure to add a move constructor and a move assignment operator, per the Rule of 5), eg:
template<typename T>
class Vectem {
private:
node<T>* head = nullptr;
node<T>* last = nullptr;
int lenght = 0;
public:
Vectem() = default;
Vectem(const Vectem &src)
{
// copy src's data to *this as needed ...
}
Vectem(Vectem &&src) : head(src.head), last(src.last), lenght(src.lenght)
{
src.head = nullptr;
src.last = nullptr;
src.lenght = 0;
}
~Vectem()
{
// cleanup *this as needed ...
}
Vectem& operator=(const Vectem &rhs)
{
if (&rhs != this) {
// clear *this, and copy rhs's data to *this, as needed ...
}
return *this;
}
Vectem& operator=(Vectem &&rhs)
{
// clear *this as needed...
head = rhs.head; rhs.head = nullptr;
last = rhs.last; rhs.last = nullptr;
lenght = rhs.lenght; rhs.lenght = 0;
return *this;
}
...
};
That being said, insert() is also buggy, as it is dereferencing last before checking that last is actually pointing at a valid node. Try something more like this instead:
void insert(T value) {
node<T> *n = new node<T>{value, NULL};
if (!head) head = n;
if (last) last->next = n;
last = n;
++lenght;
}
Alternatively:
void insert(T value) {
node<T> **p = (last) ? &(last->next) : &head;
*p = new node<T>{value, NULL};
last = *p;
++lenght;
}
I am trying to implement a one-directional list. Everything works perfectly fine until the command m3=m1+m2 is doubled in the main function. When I was debugging I noticed that in the overloaded = operator, after the destruction happens, the values assigned to the o1 object disappear. No idea if there is something wrong with destructor, or the operator =.
Here is the code:
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
template <class T>
class Element;
template <class T>
class List{
friend class Element<T>;
Element<T> *head;
public:
List(){
cout<<"konstruktor"<<endl;
head=NULL;
}
~List() {
Element<T> *tmp = head;
cout << "destruktor" << endl;
while (tmp) {
//tmp = tmp->next;
delete head;
head = tmp;
}
}
friend istream &operator>>(istream &p, List<T> &o1){
Element<T>* new_ele;
Element<T>* it;
it=o1.head;
new_ele=new Element<T>;
p>>new_ele->value;
new_ele->next=NULL;
if (o1.head==NULL){
o1.head=new_ele;
}
else{
while (it->next!=NULL){
it=it->next;
}
it->next=new_ele;
}
return p;
}
friend ostream &operator<<(ostream &s, List<T> &o1){
Element<T>* it;
it=o1.head;
while(it){
s<<it->value<<" ";
it=it->next;
}
return s;
}
List <T> &operator=(const List<T> &o1){
if (this==&o1){
return *this;
}
Element<T> *it1, *it2, *itc;
this->~List();//this is the where everything goes haywire
itc=head;
it1=o1.head;
while(it1){
itc=new Element<T>;
if (!head) head=it1;
itc->next=NULL;
itc->value=it1->value;
it1=it1->next;
itc=itc->next;
}
return *this;
}
List<T> &operator+(List<T> &o1){
if(o1.head==NULL){
return *this;
}else if(head==NULL){
return o1;
}
static List<T> res=*this;
Element<T> *it;
it=res.head;
while(it->next) {
it = it->next;
}
Element <T> *o1_it=o1.head;
while(o1_it){
Element<T> *copy;
copy=new Element<T>;
copy->next=NULL;
copy->value=o1_it->value;
it->next=copy;
it=it->next;
o1_it=o1_it->next;
}
return res;
}
int length_list(){
Element<T> *it;
int count_elements=0;
it=head;
while(it->next){
count_elements++;
it=it->next;
}
return count_elements;
}
void bubblesort_List(){
Element<T> *it;
for(int i=0; this->length_list() > i;i++){
it = head;
while (it->next) {
if (it->next->value < it->value) {
T tmp = it->value;
it->value = it->next->value;
it->next->value = tmp;
}
it = it->next;
}
}
}
};
template <class T>
class Element{
friend class List<T>;
friend istream &operator>>(istream &p, List<T> &o1);
friend ostream &operator<<(ostream &s, List<T> &o1);
Element<T> *next;
T value;
public:
Element(){
next=NULL;
}
};
int main(){
List<int> m1, m2, m3;
cin>>m1>>m1>>m1;
cin>>m2;
m3=m1+m2;
m3=m1+m2;
cout<<m3<<endl;
return 0;
}
this->~List();
this destroys the object. It doesn't just run the destructor.
After an object is destroyed, its storage remains, but there is no object there. Interacting with the storage as if there was an object there is undefined behavior.
Move the body of the destructor to a helper function called clear():
Fix it:
clear() {
std::cout << "clear" << std::endl;
while (head) {
Element<T>* tmp = head;
head=head->next;
delete tmp;
}
}
and make your ~List() be simply clear().
Next, lets fix your operator=.
List& operator=(List&&o) {
if (this==&o)
return *this;
clear();
head = o.head;
o.head = nullptr;
return *this
}
List& operator=(const List &o) {
if (this== &o)
return;
*this = List(o); // call operator=(List&&) using a copy of o
return *this;
}
List(List&& o):
head(o.head)
{
o.head = nullptr;
}
List():head(nullptr) {}
// all of the work goes on here:
List(List const& o):List()
{
Element<T>* src = o.head;
Element<T>** dest = &head;
while(src) {
*dest = new Element<T>;
(*dest)->value = src->value;
(*dest)->next = nullptr;
src = src->next;
dest = &((*dest)->next);
}
}
I have chained everything to work off simpler functions.
=(&&) and (&&) (move-assign and move-construct) copies head and clears the source. This is a small amount of duplicate code.
=(const&) (copy-assign) uses =(&&) (move-assign) and (const&) (copy-construct). The business of copying nodes is hard; do it in one situation. Copying into an empty instance is easier than into one that already exists.
(const&) is the only one that does the work. Here I keep a pointer-to-the-tail-pointer of my linked list, and a pointer-to-the-next-element-to-add.
Then I splice a copy of the next element in, and update my tail and next element pointers.
Two main issues
call delete to invoke destructor, never explicitly call ~List. Just call it free_list or something and call it on head
your destructor is broken, it's not freeing memory up correctly
you want :
void free_list (Element<T> * head) {
Element<T> *tmp = head;
while (tmp != null) {
head = tmp.next;
delete tmp;
tmp = head;
}
}
I have a Tree class with the following definition:
class Tree {
Tree();
private:
TreeNode *rootPtr;
}
TreeNode represents a node and has data, leftPtr and rightPtr.
How do I create a copy of a tree object using a copy constructor? I want to do something like:
Tree obj1;
//insert nodes
Tree obj2(obj1); //without modifying obj1.
Any help is appreciated!
Pseudo-code:
struct Tree {
Tree(Tree const& other) {
for (each in other) {
insert(each);
}
}
void insert(T item);
};
Concrete example (changing how you walk the tree is important to know, but detracts from showing how the copy ctor works, and might be doing too much of someone's homework here):
#include <algorithm>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
template<class Type>
struct TreeNode {
Type data;
TreeNode* left;
TreeNode* right;
explicit
TreeNode(Type const& value=Type()) : data(value), left(0), right(0) {}
};
template<class Type>
struct Tree {
typedef TreeNode<Type> Node;
Tree() : root(0) {}
Tree(Tree const& other) : root(0) {
std::vector<Node const*> remaining;
Node const* cur = other.root;
while (cur) {
insert(cur->data);
if (cur->right) {
remaining.push_back(cur->right);
}
if (cur->left) {
cur = cur->left;
}
else if (remaining.empty()) {
break;
}
else {
cur = remaining.back();
remaining.pop_back();
}
}
}
~Tree() {
std::vector<Node*> remaining;
Node* cur = root;
while (cur) {
Node* left = cur->left;
if (cur->right) {
remaining.push_back(cur->right);
}
delete cur;
if (left) {
cur = left;
}
else if (remaining.empty()) {
break;
}
else {
cur = remaining.back();
remaining.pop_back();
}
}
}
void insert(Type const& value) {
// sub-optimal insert
Node* new_root = new Node(value);
new_root->left = root;
root = new_root;
}
// easier to include simple op= than either disallow it
// or be wrong by using the compiler-supplied one
void swap(Tree& other) { std::swap(root, other.root); }
Tree& operator=(Tree copy) { swap(copy); return *this; }
friend
ostream& operator<<(ostream& s, Tree const& t) {
std::vector<Node const*> remaining;
Node const* cur = t.root;
while (cur) {
s << cur->data << ' ';
if (cur->right) {
remaining.push_back(cur->right);
}
if (cur->left) {
cur = cur->left;
}
else if (remaining.empty()) {
break;
}
else {
cur = remaining.back();
remaining.pop_back();
}
}
return s;
}
private:
Node* root;
};
int main() {
using namespace std;
Tree<int> a;
a.insert(5);
a.insert(28);
a.insert(3);
a.insert(42);
cout << a << '\n';
Tree<int> b (a);
cout << b << '\n';
return 0;
}
It depends on whether you want a shallow or deep copy. Assuming a deep copy, you need to be able to copy whatever's at the "leaves" hanging off a TreeNode object; so ideally the functionality should be in TreeNode (unless Tree is a friend class of TreeNode that you've designed to be deeply familiar with its implementation, which is often the case of course;-). Assuming something like...:
template <class Leaf>
class TreeNode {
private:
bool isLeaf;
Leaf* leafValue;
TreeNode *leftPtr, *rightPtr;
TreeNode(const&Leaf leafValue);
TreeNode(const TreeNode *left, const TreeNode *right);
...
then you could add to it a
public:
TreeNode<Leaf>* clone() const {
if (isLeaf) return new TreeNode<Leaf>(*leafValue);
return new TreeNode<Leaf>(
leftPtr? leftPtr->clone() : NULL,
rightPtr? rightPtr->clone() : NULL,
);
}
If Tree is taking care of this level of functionality (as a friend class), then obviously you'll have the exact equivalent but with the node being cloned as an explicit arg.
Two basic options:
If you have an iterator available, you can simply iterate over the elements in the tree and insert each one manually, as R. Pate described. If your tree class doesn't take explicit measures to balance the tree (e.g. AVL or red-black rotations), you'll end up effectively with a linked list of nodes this way (that is, all the left child pointers will be null). If you are balancing your tree, you'll effectively do the balancing work twice (since you already had to figure it out on the source tree from which you're copying).
A quicker but messier and more error-prone solution would be to build the copy top down by doing a breadth-first or depth-first traversal of the source tree structure. You wouldn't need any balancing rotations and you'd end up with an identical node topology.
Here's another example I used with a binary tree.
In this example, node and tree are defined in separate classes and a copyHelper recursive function helps the copyTree function. The code isn't complete, I tried to put only what was necessary to understand how the functions are implemented.
copyHelper:
void copyHelper( BinTreeNode<T>* copy, BinTreeNode<T>* originalNode ) {
if (originalTree == NULL)
copy = NULL;
else {
// set value of copy to that of originalTree
copy->setValue( originalTree->getValue() );
if ( originalTree->hasLeft() ) {
// call the copyHelper function on a newly created left child and set the pointers
// accordingly, I did this using an 'addLeftChild( node, value )' function, which creates
// a new node in memory, sets the left, right child, and returns that node. Notice
// I call the addLeftChild function within the recursive call to copyHelper.
copyHelper(addLeftChild( copy, originalTree->getValue()), originalTree->getLeftChild());
}
if ( originalTree->hasRight() ) { // same with left child
copyHelper(addRightChild(copy, originalTree->getValue()), originalTree->getRightChild());
}
} // end else
} // end copyHelper
copy: returns a pointer to the new tree
Tree* copy( Tree* old ) {
Tree* tree = new Tree();
copyHelper( tree->root, oldTree->getRoot() );
// we just created a newly allocated tree copy of oldTree!
return tree;
} // end copy
Usage:
Tree obj2 = obj2->copy(obj1);
I hope this helps someone.
When your class has a pointer pointing to dynamically allocated memory, in the copy constructor of that class you need to allocate memory for newly created object. Then you need to initialize newly allocated memory with whatever the other pointer pointing at. Here is an example how you need to deal with a class having dynamically allocated memory:
class A
{
int *a;
public:
A(): a(new int) {*a = 0;}
A(const A& obj): a(new int)
{
*a = *(obj.a);
}
~A() {delete a;}
int get() const {return *a;}
void set(int x) {*a = x;}
};
You can try something like (untested)
class Tree {
TreeNode *rootPtr;
TreeNode* makeTree(Treenode*);
TreeNode* newNode(TreeNode* p)
{
TreeNode* node = new Treenode ;
node->data = p->data ;
node->left = 0 ;
node->right = 0 ;
}
public:
Tree(){}
Tree(const Tree& other)
{
rootPtr = makeTree(other.rootPtr) ;
}
~Tree(){//delete nodes}
};
TreeNode* Tree::makeTree(Treenode *p)
{
if( !p )
{
TreeNode* pBase = newNode(p); //create a new node with same data as p
pBase->left = makeTree(p->left->data);
pBase->right = makeTree(p->right->data);
return pBase ;
}
return 0 ;
}