While going through runtime, I'm getting a nullptr exception while this code is executing.
bool Tree::Insert(int n)
{
if (root == nullptr) // This is where it throws
{
Node* root = new Node(n);
return true;
}
Initialization in Tree.h
private:
Node* root;
and Tree constructor.
Tree::Tree()
{
root = nullptr;
}
I have coded exactly like this before and it never threw an exception.
UPDATE:
I apologize for the confusion on the extra '}' Tree::Insert(). There's more code in there and they all have a return case. I had this before
Node* newNode = new Node(n);
root = newNode;
but changed it for a different reason.
Node.h
#pragma once
struct Node
{
int data;
Node *left;
Node *right;
// Constructor
Node() { data = 0; left = nullptr; right = nullptr; }
// Parameterized
Node(int d) { data = d; left = nullptr; right = nullptr; }
// Destructor
~Node() { data = 0; }
};
You either access the Tree::Insert member directly (i.e. not via an instance of the Tree class as if it was a static member) or the instance of the Tree class you're using to access the Insert method is not initialized.
In other words, this is null.
nullptr is implementation-specific. when you say,
"I have coded exactly like this before and it never threw an exception."
you may have to check if it was on a different compiler.
Related
Today I was taught Linked list in class and I wanted to implement it on my own.
Here's the part of the code that I wrote. Note that traverseLL traverses the Linked list and insertAtEnd inserts a new node at the end of the linked list.
I believe I can implement Linked list logic / methods / functions on my own. But my question is, inside insertAtEnd function when I create a newNode with the parameters - my data to be inserted, and nullptr (because inserting at the end), It inserts garbage values (or memory addresses maybe) in my node, ignoring the data passed to the constructor.
using namespace std;
#define NL '\n'
class Node {
public:
int data;
Node* next;
Node (int data, Node* nextPtr=nullptr) {
data = data;
next = nextPtr;
}
};
void insertAtEnd(Node* &head, int data) {
Node* newNode = new Node(data, nullptr); // <---- Issue in this line
// When I do as above, my linkedlist nodes always store garbage values and not the data being passed.
// However, when I un-comment the below line, I get the correct output.
// newNode->data = data;
if (head == nullptr)
head = newNode;
else {
Node* temp = head;
while (temp->next != nullptr)
temp = temp->next;
temp->next = newNode;
}
}
void traverseLL(Node* head) {
if (head == nullptr)
return;
while (head->next) {
cout << head->data << " -> ";
head = head->next;
}
cout << head->data << NL;
}
int main() {
Node* head = nullptr;
insertAtEnd(head, 10);
insertAtEnd(head, 20);
insertAtEnd(head, 30);
traverseLL(head);
return 0;
}
For example, the output for the above code when keeping newNode->data = data line commented, is :
16259544 -> 16258392 -> 16258392
But when I un-comment that line, my output becomes, which is intended:
10 -> 20 -> 30
Why is this happening? Even though I've defined my constructor, why is it not working?
I think the cause for this is the statement data = data in the constructor.
Reason for this:
Before executing the first statement of constructor, the member variables of the class are allocated memory and contain junk/default values, and when the statement data = data is seen the compiler changes the parameter but not the member variable.
As a result, you are seeing junk/garbage values.
To resolve this we can either explicitly specify the member using this or use member initialization syntax.
You can use any of the following workarounds.
Workarounds:
You can change your class constructor code like any of the below formats:
1.
class Node {
public:
int data;
Node* next;
Node (int data, Node* nextPtr=nullptr) {
this->data = data; // we are explicitly specifying which data to use
next = nextPtr;
}
};
class Node {
public:
int data;
Node* next;
Node (int d, Node* nextPtr=nullptr) {
data = d; // as the member variable and local variable are of different names, no conflict
next = nextPtr;
}
};
class Node {
public:
int data;
Node* next;
// use the member initialization syntax
// Here we are initializing the data while allocating memory itself,
// so answer is perfectly right!
Node (int d, Node* nextPtr=nullptr) : data(data), next(nextPtr) {}
};
More on the member initialization and constructor:
https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/constructor
How do C++ class members get initialized if I don't do it explicitly?
Hope this helps,
Thanks.
This question already has answers here:
Binary Search Tree Destructor
(6 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
Please help me. I am stuck at this.
What am I trying to do: Binary search tree.
I am a C# developer and I learn C++ for about 2 weeks, therefore don't be so harsh with me and that's why pointers are still difficult for me.
I have a struct Node
struct Node
{
int Value;
Node* _LeftNode;
Node* _RightNode;
Node(int value)
: Value(value), _LeftNode(NULL), _RightNode(NULL)
{
}
};
and a Delete() function in BinarySearchTree.cpp
void BinarySearchТрее::Delete(Node* node)
{
if (node)
{
Delete(node->_LeftNode);
Delete(node->_RightNode);
delete(node);
node = NULL;
}
}
I want to delete the node and all of its child nodes.
When I first step in the recursion... For example:
I have two child nodes with values 10 and 19.
With recursion, I delete the nodes and set the pointers to NULL.
And here is the problem:
When I came out from the recursion the nodes are not NULL, but something strange.
And this is my problem. Why when I am in the recursion and I NULL the pointer everything is fine, but when I come out the pointer is something else.
As I talked in the comments, I think the thing is that how we can reset the pointer of the parent's(left or right child) of the initially passed node. (recursively deleting a node and its all children looks good.)
And I don't think it is possible in your current design. As Node does not contain a pointer to its parent, so there is no way to know who's the parent. node = NULL sets just the argument(local variable)'s value so it is pointless.
The C++ way would be to use std::unique_ptr.
struct Node
{
int Value;
std::unique_ptr<Node> LeftNode;
std::unique_ptr<Node> RightNode;
Node(int value)
: Value(value)
{
}
};
Then to destroy a node and all of its children, you'd call reset on the appropriate std::unique_ptr<Node>
I think what you actually want ist this:
struct Node
{
int Value;
Node* _LeftNode;
Node* _RightNode;
Node(int value)
: Value(value), _LeftNode(NULL), _RightNode(NULL)
{
}
~Node() {
delete _LeftNode;
delete _RightNode;
}
};
This way you are using the destructor to clean up recursivly.
delete nullptr is ok btw.
EDIT:
the unique_ptr<> usage in one of the other answers is probably the smarter way to do this.
Given:
struct Node
{
int data = 0;
struct Node * left = nullptr, * right = nullptr;
Node(int data) { this->data = data; }
};
This recursive function deletes a node & its childs (+ one comment):
void DeleteTree(struct Node* node) // A copy of the caller pointer
{
if (node)
{
DeleteTree(node->left); // Recur on left subtree
DeleteTree(node->right); // Recur on right subtree
delete node;
// node = nullptr; <-- This line is useless
}
}
To your wondering "but when I come out the pointer is something else":
There is no point in node = nullptr line, since when you call DeleteTree(my_node) function, node is a copy of my_mode, so when you set node = nullptr it has no effect on my_node that on exit from DeleteTree(my_node) points to a deleted, invalid object.
--
Possible solution:
#define DELETE_TREE(node) DeleteTree(node); node = nullptr; // Macro
int main()
{
struct Node* root = new Node(1);
root->left = new Node(2);
root->right = new Node(3);
root->left->left = new Node(4);
root->left->right = new Node(5);
DELETE_TREE(root->left); // root->left became nullptr
DELETE_TREE(root); // root became nullptr
return 0;
}
After DeleteTree function, the caller pointer points to an invalid object since its object already released. A possible solution is to define a DELETE_TREE Macro to "auto-nullify" the caller pointer after DeleteTree function.
--
Implementation with Modern C++ Smart Pointers:
#include <memory>
struct Node
{
int data = 0;
std::unique_ptr<Node> left, right;
Node(int data) { this->data = data; }
};
int main()
{
std::unique_ptr<Node> root;
root = std::make_unique<Node>(1);
root->left = std::make_unique<Node>(2);
root->right = std::make_unique<Node>(3);
root->left->left = std::make_unique<Node>(4);
root->left->right = std::make_unique<Node>(5);
root.reset();
return 0;
}
I am trying to create an appendToTail function which will add a node to the end of a singly linked list.
I am having trouble in adding a node if the head is NULL(the linked list is empty)
class Node {
private:
Node* next;
int data;
public:
Node(int d, Node* n = NULL)
: data(d)
, next(n)
{
}
void appendToTail(int);
//other trivial functions(getters and setters etc. ) defined and
//declared
};
void Node::appendToTail(int d)
{
Node* end = new Node(d);
Node* n = this;
if (n == NULL)
n = end;
else {
while (n->next != NULL)
n = n->next;
n->next = end;
n->next->next = NULL;
}
end = NULL;
delete end;
}
int main()
{
Node* n = NULL;
n->appendToTail(5);
std::cout << n->getData(); //getData() is a function which
//retrieves the Data member variable
}
I am expecting to get 5 but I am getting an error which appears to be caused because my node remains null.
Now with modern C++ idioms we use smart pointers instead of raw pointers, it gives you the benefit of RAII (Resource acquisition is initialization) mechanism. In addition if you want an elegant solution to your problem you should introduce a List class with which you can express more clearly the concept of an empty list. It would give something like this:
#include <memory>
#include <iostream>
class List
{
public:
class Node
{
private:
std::shared_ptr<Node> next;
int data;
public:
Node(int d):next(nullptr),data(d){}
inline int getData() const {return data;}
inline std::shared_ptr<Node> getNext() const {return next;}
friend List;
};
List():head(nullptr),tail(nullptr){}
void appendToTail(int );
inline std::shared_ptr<Node> getHead() const {return head;}
inline std::shared_ptr<Node> getTail() const {return tail;}
private:
std::shared_ptr<Node> head;
std::shared_ptr<Node> tail;
};
void List::appendToTail(int d)
{
auto newTail = std::make_shared<Node>(d);
if (head == nullptr)
{
head = tail = newTail;
}
else
{
tail->next = newTail;
tail = newTail;
}
}
int main()
{
List l;
l.appendToTail(5);
std::cout<<l.getHead()->getData();
}
But you should definitely prefer std::list<T> or std::vector<T>.
Unfortunately there several errors with your approach. Semantic errors and a logical error with your interpretation of a linked list. Let's start with your initial misunderstanding. You cannot add a new tail to an empty list. Because it is emtpy. Meaning, not yet existing. Only if some object is existing/instantiated you can add a tail. You cannot add something to not existing stuff. So your idea to start with a Node* n = nullptr cannot work logically.
Additionally you are dereferencing a nullptr (major bug). That is also the main problem of your code. Nothing works. You need an instantiated object, before you can call it's member functions.
So before you can populate the list, you need to create/instantiate it initially. So you need to explicitly create the first node in your main function with
Node* n = new Node (5)
Then the list is existing and from now on you can add new members with calling appendToTail.
There are more semantic errors in your code which have luckily no side effects.
You must not delete the 'end' variable in your function. You want to keep the newly allocated memory for the new tail. But you introduced an additional sematic error by setting 'end' to nullptr and then call delete. Deleting a nullptr is a noOp and will do nothing. So, although you have a semantic error, this will not cause any trouble.
There is more:
For a pointer to Null you should always use nullptr.
And, your
if (n == NULL)
is always false. Before that, you assigned this to n. This is never NULL. You can delete the if else. Keep the statements from the else, except the
n->next->next = NULL;
That's not necessary. The constructor did that already for you. As explained, the next 2 statements should also be elimanted.
Additionally you may want to read a little more on the concept of linked lists.
I hope I could help a little
I am currently making a code a class code for binary search tree but I am getting an error in the destructor for my BST class. This is my relevant part of code:
Node Struct:
struct Node{
int key;
struct Node* left;
struct Node* right;
};
Function to Create new node:
Node* BST::CreateNode(int key){
Node* temp_node = new Node();
temp_node->key = key;
temp_node->left = nullptr;
temp_node->right = nullptr;
return temp_node;
}
Assignment Operator:
BST& BST::operator=(const BST& cpy_bst){
if (this != &cpy_bst){
Node* cpy_root = cpy_bst.root;
this->root=assgRec(cpy_root, this->root);
}
return *this;
}
Node* BST::assgRec(Node* src_root, Node* dest_root){
if (src_root != nullptr){
dest_root = CreateNode(src_root->key);
dest_root->left=assgRec(src_root->left, dest_root->left);
dest_root->right=assgRec(src_root->right, dest_root->right);
}
return src_root;
}
Destructor:
BST::~BST(){
DestroyNode(root);
}
void BST::DestroyNode(Node* r){
if (r != nullptr){
DestroyNode(r->left);
DestroyNode(r->right);
delete r;
}
}
The problem is that after I have used the assignment in main function, like:
BST bin_tree2=bin_tree1;
The destructor is called but after it deletes the data in bin_tree1, all values that were placed in bin_tree2 have some junk values in them and I get an error on that part. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
This looks like you are copying pointers and accessing them after memory has been deallocated.
The problem seems not to be with the keys as I said earlier but with the nodes that seem to be improperly constructed in the BST::assgRec function.
I've just implemented the Linked List. It works perfectly fine but even tough I've seen notation I am unable to create working destructor on Node, that's why it's unimplemented here in code.
I need to implement working destructor on node
Destructor of List but this one is simple I will just use the destructor from Node class(but I need this one).
Make the List friendly to Node so I will not have to use getNext(), but I think I can
handle it myself(not sure how, but I'll find out).
Please look at the code it is perfectly fine, just will work if you copy it.
#include <cstdio>
#include <cmath>
#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
using namespace std;
class Node {
public:
Node(Node* next, int wrt) {
this->next = next;
this->wrt = wrt;
}
Node(const Node& obiekt) {
this->wrt = obiekt.wrt;
this->next = obiekt.next;
}
~Node() {}
void show() {
cout << this->wrt << endl;
}
int getWrt(){
return this->wrt;
}
Node* getNext(){
return this->next;
}
void setNext(Node* node){
this->next = node;
}
private:
Node* next;
int wrt;
};
class List{
public:
List(int wrt){
this->root = new Node(NULL, wrt);
}
List(const List& obiekt){
memcpy(&this->root,&obiekt.root,sizeof(int));
Node* el = obiekt.root->getNext();
Node* curr = this->root;
Node* next;
while(el != NULL){
memcpy(&next,&el,sizeof(int));
curr->setNext(next);
curr = next;
next = curr->getNext();
el = el->getNext();
/* curr->show();
next->show();
el->show(); */
}
}
void add(int wrt){
Node* node = new Node(NULL, wrt);
Node* el = this->root;
while(el->getNext() != NULL){
//el->show();
el = el->getNext();
}
el->setNext(node);
}
void remove(int index){
Node* el = this->root;
if(index == 0){
//deleting old one
this->root = this->root->getNext();
}
else{
int i = 0;
while(el != NULL && i < index - 1){
// el->show();
el = el->getNext();
i++;
}
if(el!=NULL){
Node* toRem = el->getNext();
Node* newNext = toRem->getNext();
el->setNext(newNext);
//deleteing old one
}
}
}
void show(){
Node* el = this->root;
while(el != NULL){
el->show();
el = el->getNext();
}
}
~List(){}
private:
Node* root;
};
int main(){
List* l = new List(1); //first list
l->add(2);
l->add(3);
l->show();
cout << endl;
List* lala = new List(*l); //lala is second list created by copy cosntructor
lala->show();
cout << endl;
lala->add(4);
lala->remove(0);
lala->show();
return 0;
}
I suggest you to start with implementing destructor of List. Since you dynamically allocated memory by using new, you should free it by using delete. (If you used new[], it would be delete[]):
~List()
{
Node* currentNode = this->root; // initialize current node to root
while (currentNode)
{
Node* nextNode = currentNode->getNext(); // get next node
delete currentNode; // delete current
currentNode = nextNode; // set current to "old" next
}
}
Once you have proper destructor, you should try whether your copy constructor is correct:
List* lala = new List(*l);
delete l; // delete list that was used to create copy, shouldn't affect copy
you will find out that your copy constructor is wrong and also causes your application to crash. Why? Because purpose of copy constructor is to create a new object as a copy of an existing object. Your copy constructor just copies pointers assuming sizeof(Node*) equal to sizeof(int). It should look like this:
List(const List& list)
{
// if empty list is being copied:
if (!list.root)
{
this->root = NULL;
return;
}
// create new root:
this->root = new Node(NULL, list.root->getWrt());
Node* list_currentNode = list.root;
Node* this_currentNode = this->root;
while (list_currentNode->getNext())
{
// create new successor:
Node* newNode = new Node(NULL, list_currentNode->getNext()->getWrt());
this_currentNode->setNext(newNode);
this_currentNode = this_currentNode->getNext();
list_currentNode = list_currentNode->getNext();
}
}
Also your function remove is wrong since it "removes" reference to some Node but never frees memory where this Node resides. delete should be called in order to free this memory.
"I need to implement working destructor on node" - No, you don't. Node itself doesn't allocate any memory, thus it shouldn't free any memory. Node shouldn't be responsible for destruction of Node* next nor cleaning memory where it's stored. Don't implement destructor nor copy constructor of Node. You also want to read this: What is The Rule of Three?
"Make the List friendly to Node so I will not have to use getNext()" - You want to say within Node class, that class List is its friend:
class Node
{
friend class List; // <-- that's it
Note that from these 5 headers that you include your code requires only one: <iostream>.
Also note that writing using namespace std; at the beginning of the file is considered bad practice since it may cause names of some of your types become ambiguous. Use it wisely within small scopes or use std:: prefix instead.
The linked list destructor will be called either when delete is used with a previously allocated pointer to a linked list or when a linked list variable goes out of scope (e.g., a local variable is destroyed when returning from a function).
The destructor for the linked list should be responsible to free the memory you previously reserved for the nodes (i.e., using add operation). So, basically, you need to traverse the list of nodes and apply the delete operation on each one of them. There is a little trick: when you are about to delete a node you must be careful not to lose the pointer to the next element (when a node is deleted you cannot be sure that next member will still be valid).
If you want to create a destructor for your Node, it should be quite simple actually.
Here it is:
class Node {
private:
int wrt;
Node* next;
public:
Node(Node* next, int wrt) {
this->next = next;
this->wrt = wrt;
}
// Your desired destructor using recursion
~Node() {
if ( next != NULL )
delete next;
}
};
It's that simple :)
Basically, right before the Node is deleted, if next is not empty, we delete next, which will again call the destructor of next, and if next->next is not empty, again the destructor gets called over and over.
Then in the end all Nodes get deleted.
The recursion takes care of the whole thing :)