I have a doubt. Let’s say that I have implemented a stack in a way similar to a linked list, like this (there are just a push and a print function)
#include <iostream>
template <class T>
struct node{
T data;
node<T> *down;
};
template <class T>
class mystack{
public:
node<T> *top = new node<T>;
mystack(){top = nullptr; std::cout << "CONSTRUCTION!" << std::endl;}
~mystack(){delete top; std::cout << "DESTRUCTION!" << std::endl;}
void push(T elem){
node<T> *new_node = new node<T>;
new_node -> data = elem;
if (!top){
new_node -> down = top;
top = new_node;
return;
}
else{
node<T> *temp = top;
new_node -> down = temp;
top = new_node;
return;
}
}
void print_stack(){
node<T> *temp = top;
while(temp){
std::cout << temp -> data << std::endl;
temp = temp -> down;
}
}
};
int main(){
mystack<int> st;
st.push(20);
st.push(200);
st.push(2000);
st.print_stack();
}
my question is: does deleting the top pointer delete all the other pointers or just the first one and the other are still there sitting (hence this code is very bad)?.
Plus, would you rather use a smart pointer to do this kind of stuff? Thank you for your time.
Your single delete is insufficient. You need something like:
~mystack()
{
while(top != nullptr)
{
node<T> *curr = top;
top = top->down;
delete curr;
}
std::cout << "DESTRUCTION!" << std::endl;
}
That way, you delete every element in your container.
I've created a link list class with some operations.
I am trying to merge two linked lists together, as shown in the main function. I am able to successfully do that operation and have it display on the screen.
I suspect I may be doing something wrong, though, with implementing the tail node's next pointer. When the destructor is called, I turn on the debugger to see what is going on exactly. It deletes all of the nodes successfully and shows that old->next and subsequently head do end up equaling nullptr. I made sure for the destructor to only loop when the empty operation is false for nullptr.
But, for some reason, the destructor continues looping and the program gives me the error:
LinkedList(2000,0x1000d3dc0) malloc: error for object 0x1007239d0: pointer being freed was not allocated
I know the solution may be obvious, but I am completely pooped. The destructor works fine for non-merged lists.
class Node{
public:
int data;
Node* next;
friend class LinkedList;
};
class LinkedList{
public:
Node* head;
public:
LinkedList()
{head = nullptr;}
~LinkedList()
{while (!empty()) remove();}
void addDataBack(int data);
void display();
void remove();
bool empty() const
{return head == nullptr;}
void merge(Node* list1, Node* list2);
};
void LinkedList::addDataBack(int data){
Node *p = new Node;
Node *t;
t = head;
p->data = data;
p->next = nullptr;
if (!head){
head = p;
}
else{
t = head;
while(t->next){
t = t->next;
}
t->next = p;
}
}
void LinkedList::display(){
Node *t = head;
while (t){
cout << t->data << endl;
t = t->next;
}
}
void LinkedList::remove(){
Node *old = head;
head = old->next;
delete old;
}
void LinkedList::insertNode(int index, int data){
Node *node = new Node;
int i = 0;
Node *t = head;
Node *p = nullptr;
node->data= data;
while ( t!= NULL){
if (index == i){
p->next = node;
node->next = t;
break;
}
p = t;
t = t->next;
i++;
}
}
void LinkedList:: merge(Node *list1, Node *list2){
Node* t = list1;
head = list1;
while (t->next) {
t = t->next;
}
t->next = list2;
}
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
LinkedList list;
LinkedList list2;
list.addDataBack(8);
list.addDataBack(3);
list.addDataBack(7);
list.addDataBack(12);
list.addDataBack(9);
list.insertNode(2, 25);
list2.addDataBack(4);
list2.addDataBack(10);
LinkedList list3;
list3.merge (list.head, list2.head);
list.display();
return 0;
}
The code does not compile because you're missing the insert function prototype in the class definition.
See the insertNode function; in the line p->next = node, if index
is 0, then this line is going to indirect a null pointer and throw an exception.
The insertNode function will leak memory if you provide an index outside the current number of nodes - 1
The insertNode function will leak memory if the current list is empty
Here is how it should look.
void LinkedList::insertNode(int index, int data)
{
Node* newNode = new Node;
newNode->data = data;
//Wrap this up quick if the list is already empty.
if (head == nullptr)
{
head = newNode;
return;
}
int i = 0;
Node* current = head;
Node* prev = nullptr;
while (current != nullptr)
{
if (index == i)
{
newNode->next = current;
if (prev)
prev->next = newNode;
return;
}
prev = current;
current = current->next;
i++;
}
//if (index >= i)
//Either delete the new node, or throw an out of bounds exception.
//Otherwise this will result in a memory leak. Personally, I think
//throwing the exception is correct.
delete newNode;
}
Here is the main issue:
Your merge function is a bit confusing, because you are essentially creating a new list from two lists, but not via a constructor, but simply merging them. This will mean that list1 is functionally equivalent to list3, but the addresses are all intermingled. This means that when we exit the main function scope, you will be deleting memory from list1, and then when it destroys list2 it will ALSO delete them again, and list3 will do the same (though it will have crashed before then).
Why not simply make it take one list and then merge the two?
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
class Node{
public:
int data;
Node* next;
friend class LinkedList;
};
class LinkedList{
public:
Node* head;
public:
LinkedList()
{head = nullptr;}
~LinkedList();
void addDataBack(int data);
void display();
void remove();
void insertNode(int index, int data);
bool empty() const
{return head == nullptr;}
void merge(LinkedList& otherList);
};
LinkedList::~LinkedList()
{
while (!empty())
remove();
}
void LinkedList::addDataBack(int data){
Node *p = new Node;
Node *t;
t = head;
p->data = data;
p->next = nullptr;
if (!head){
head = p;
}
else{
t = head;
while(t->next){
t = t->next;
}
t->next = p;
}
}
void LinkedList::display(){
Node *t = head;
while (t){
cout << t->data << endl;
t = t->next;
}
}
void LinkedList::remove(){
Node *old = head;
head = old->next;
delete old;
old = nullptr;
}
void LinkedList::insertNode(int index, int data)
{
Node* newNode = new Node;
newNode->data = data;
//Wrap this up quick if the list is already empty.
if (head == nullptr)
{
head = newNode;
return;
}
int i = 0;
Node* current = head;
Node* prev = nullptr;
while (current != nullptr)
{
if (index == i)
{
newNode->next = current;
if (prev)
prev->next = newNode;
return;
}
prev = current;
current = current->next;
i++;
}
//if (index >= i)
//Either delete the new node, or throw an out of bounds exception.
//Otherwise this will result in a memory leak. Personally, I think
//throwing the exception is correct.
delete newNode;
}
void LinkedList:: merge(LinkedList& otherList){
Node* thisTail = head;
while (thisTail->next) {
thisTail = thisTail->next;
}
thisTail->next = otherList.head;
otherList.head = nullptr;
}
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
LinkedList list;
LinkedList list2;
list.addDataBack(8);
list.addDataBack(3);
list.addDataBack(7);
list.addDataBack(12);
list.addDataBack(9);
list.insertNode(2, 25);
list2.addDataBack(4);
list2.addDataBack(10);
list.merge(list2);
list.display();
list2.display();
cout << "list2 is " << (list2.empty() ? "empty." : "not empty");
return 0;
}
Final Note:
Try to avoid single letter variables unless they are used for iteration, otherwise (especially with linked lists and pointer juggling) it is very difficult to maintain, debug and receive help for.
But, for some reason, the destructor continues looping and [...]
I doubt that, but this is what might appear to be happening if you are not watching closely enough (in particular, watching the value of the this pointer). It looks to me as though the destructor of list3 will finish looping, at which point the destructor of list2 will start (destroying in the opposite order of construction). If you miss seeing this transition, it could very well look like the destructor is continuing when it is in fact being called a second time.
Since you never changed list2.head, it is still pointing at one of the nodes that had been merged into list3. When list2's destructor starts, head is still pointing at one of the nodes that had just been deleted by list3's destructor. Trying to delete that already-deleted node is an error.
I am preparing for some interviews and I trying to just write a basic single linked list quickly. The code compiles fine but nothing seems to print and I am not sure why.
This is what I did:
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <utility>
struct Node {
int data;
std::unique_ptr<Node> next = nullptr;
Node(const int& x, std::unique_ptr<Node>&& p = nullptr)
: data(x)
, next(std::move(p)) {}
};
std::unique_ptr<Node> head;
Node* tail;
void print() {
auto temp = head.get();
while (temp) {
std::cout << temp->data << " ";
temp = temp->next.get();
}
std::cout << "\t";
}
void push_back(const int& theData) {
std::unique_ptr<Node> newNode = std::make_unique<Node>(theData);
if (!head) {
newNode = std::move(head);
tail = head.get();
}
else {
tail->next = std::move(newNode);
tail = tail->next.get();
}
}
int main() {
head = nullptr;
tail = nullptr;
push_back(2);
push_back(4);
push_back(6);
print();
std::cin.get();
}
This should print 2 4 6 but it does not print anything. Any idea why?
You are not updaing your head in push_back(). Instead of
if (!head) { newNode = std::move(head); ... }
you should be doing
if (!head) {head = std::move(newNode); ... }
I'm practicing implementing a Template Class Linked List with the Node struct within the implementation of the Linked List Class. In the createNode() member function, when I initialize a pointer variable to a node struct, I get the compiler error: "Uninitialized local variable 'newNode' used"
I've found if I change the initialization to:
Node* newNode = new Node();
That it works just fine. I'm a bit confused as to why this matters if I can initialize the basic data types like int as:
int* intPtr;
Why can't I do the same with structs?? My code is below:
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
template<class T>
class LinkedList
{
private:
struct Node
{
T data;
Node* next;
};
Node* head;
Node* tail;
int size;
public:
LinkedList() : head{ nullptr }, tail{ nullptr }, size{ 0 }
{
}
Node* createNode(T data)
{
Node* newNode;
newNode->data = data;
newNode->next = nullptr;
return newNode;
}
void display()
{
Node* currentNode = head;
while (currentNode)
{
std::cout << currentNode->data << std::endl;
currentNode = currentNode->next;
}
}
void push(T data)
{
Node* newNode = createNode(data);
if (size == 0)
{
head = newNode;
tail = newNode;
}
else
{
tail->next = newNode;
tail = newNode;
}
++size;
}
};
int main()
{
LinkedList<int> list;
list.push(5);
list.push(3);
list.push(6);
list.display();
std::cin.clear();
std::cin.ignore(32767, '\n');
std::cin.get();
return 0;
}
You said:
I'm a bit confused as to why this matters if I can initialize the basic data types like int as:
int* intPtr;
That's a wrong conclusion. If you use:
int* intPtr;
*intPtr = 10;
you'll probably see the same warning/error from the compiler. The correct way to use intPtr will be to make sure it is initialized to point to a valid object before anything is assigned to it using *intPtr.
int* intPtr = new int;
*intPtr = 10;
This is similar to using
Node* newNode = new Node();
newNode->data = data;
newNode->next = nullptr;
in your code.
I am about to create a linked that can insert and display until now:
struct Node {
int x;
Node *next;
};
This is my initialisation function which only will be called for the first Node:
void initNode(struct Node *head, int n){
head->x = n;
head->next = NULL;
}
To add the Node, and I think the reason why my linked list isn't working correct is in this function:
void addNode(struct Node *head, int n){
struct Node *NewNode = new Node;
NewNode-> x = n;
NewNode -> next = head;
head = NewNode;
}
My main function:
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
struct Node *head = new Node;
initNode(head, 5);
addNode(head, 10);
addNode(head, 20);
return 0;
}
Let me run the program as I think it works. First I initialise the head Node as a Node like this:
head = [ 5 | NULL ]
Then I add a new node with n = 10 and pass head as my argument.
NewNode = [ x | next ] where next points at head. And then I change the place where head is pointing to NewNode, since NewNode is the first Node in LinkedList now.
Why isn't this working? I would appreciate any hints that could make me move in the right direction. I think LinkedList is a bit hard to understand.
When I'm printing this, it only returns 5:
This is the most simple example I can think of in this case and is not tested. Please consider that this uses some bad practices and does not go the way you normally would go with C++ (initialize lists, separation of declaration and definition, and so on). But that are topics I can't cover here.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class LinkedList{
// Struct inside the class LinkedList
// This is one node which is not needed by the caller. It is just
// for internal work.
struct Node {
int x;
Node *next;
};
// public member
public:
// constructor
LinkedList(){
head = NULL; // set head to NULL
}
// destructor
~LinkedList(){
Node *next = head;
while(next) { // iterate over all elements
Node *deleteMe = next;
next = next->next; // save pointer to the next element
delete deleteMe; // delete the current entry
}
}
// This prepends a new value at the beginning of the list
void addValue(int val){
Node *n = new Node(); // create new Node
n->x = val; // set value
n->next = head; // make the node point to the next node.
// If the list is empty, this is NULL, so the end of the list --> OK
head = n; // last but not least, make the head point at the new node.
}
// returns the first element in the list and deletes the Node.
// caution, no error-checking here!
int popValue(){
Node *n = head;
int ret = n->x;
head = head->next;
delete n;
return ret;
}
// private member
private:
Node *head; // this is the private member variable. It is just a pointer to the first Node
};
int main() {
LinkedList list;
list.addValue(5);
list.addValue(10);
list.addValue(20);
cout << list.popValue() << endl;
cout << list.popValue() << endl;
cout << list.popValue() << endl;
// because there is no error checking in popValue(), the following
// is undefined behavior. Probably the program will crash, because
// there are no more values in the list.
// cout << list.popValue() << endl;
return 0;
}
I would strongly suggest you to read a little bit about C++ and Object oriented programming. A good starting point could be this: http://www.galileocomputing.de/1278?GPP=opoo
EDIT: added a pop function and some output. As you can see the program pushes 3 values 5, 10, 20 and afterwards pops them. The order is reversed afterwards because this list works in stack mode (LIFO, Last in First out)
You should take reference of a head pointer. Otherwise the pointer modification is not visible outside of the function.
void addNode(struct Node *&head, int n){
struct Node *NewNode = new Node;
NewNode-> x = n;
NewNode -> next = head;
head = NewNode;
}
I'll join the fray. It's been too long since I've written C. Besides, there's no complete examples here anyway. The OP's code is basically C, so I went ahead and made it work with GCC.
The problems were covered before; the next pointer wasn't being advanced. That was the crux of the issue.
I also took the opportunity to make a suggested edit; instead of having two funcitons to malloc, I put it in initNode() and then used initNode() to malloc both (malloc is "the C new" if you will). I changed initNode() to return a pointer.
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
// required to be declared before self-referential definition
struct Node;
struct Node {
int x;
struct Node *next;
};
struct Node* initNode( int n){
struct Node *head = malloc(sizeof(struct Node));
head->x = n;
head->next = NULL;
return head;
}
void addNode(struct Node **head, int n){
struct Node *NewNode = initNode( n );
NewNode -> next = *head;
*head = NewNode;
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
struct Node* head = initNode(5);
addNode(&head,10);
addNode(&head,20);
struct Node* cur = head;
do {
printf("Node # %p : %i\n",(void*)cur, cur->x );
} while ( ( cur = cur->next ) != NULL );
}
compilation: gcc -o ll ll.c
output:
Node # 0x9e0050 : 20
Node # 0x9e0030 : 10
Node # 0x9e0010 : 5
Below is a sample linkedlist
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
template<class T>
class Node
{
public:
Node();
Node(const T& item, Node<T>* ptrnext = NULL);
T value;
Node<T> * next;
};
template<class T>
Node<T>::Node()
{
value = NULL;
next = NULL;
}
template<class T>
Node<T>::Node(const T& item, Node<T>* ptrnext = NULL)
{
this->value = item;
this->next = ptrnext;
}
template<class T>
class LinkedListClass
{
private:
Node<T> * Front;
Node<T> * Rear;
int Count;
public:
LinkedListClass();
~LinkedListClass();
void InsertFront(const T Item);
void InsertRear(const T Item);
void PrintList();
};
template<class T>
LinkedListClass<T>::LinkedListClass()
{
Front = NULL;
Rear = NULL;
}
template<class T>
void LinkedListClass<T>::InsertFront(const T Item)
{
if (Front == NULL)
{
Front = new Node<T>();
Front->value = Item;
Front->next = NULL;
Rear = new Node<T>();
Rear = Front;
}
else
{
Node<T> * newNode = new Node<T>();
newNode->value = Item;
newNode->next = Front;
Front = newNode;
}
}
template<class T>
void LinkedListClass<T>::InsertRear(const T Item)
{
if (Rear == NULL)
{
Rear = new Node<T>();
Rear->value = Item;
Rear->next = NULL;
Front = new Node<T>();
Front = Rear;
}
else
{
Node<T> * newNode = new Node<T>();
newNode->value = Item;
Rear->next = newNode;
Rear = newNode;
}
}
template<class T>
void LinkedListClass<T>::PrintList()
{
Node<T> * temp = Front;
while (temp->next != NULL)
{
cout << " " << temp->value << "";
if (temp != NULL)
{
temp = (temp->next);
}
else
{
break;
}
}
}
int main()
{
LinkedListClass<int> * LList = new LinkedListClass<int>();
LList->InsertFront(40);
LList->InsertFront(30);
LList->InsertFront(20);
LList->InsertFront(10);
LList->InsertRear(50);
LList->InsertRear(60);
LList->InsertRear(70);
LList->PrintList();
}
Both functions are wrong. First of all function initNode has a confusing name. It should be named as for example initList and should not do the task of addNode. That is, it should not add a value to the list.
In fact, there is not any sense in function initNode, because the initialization of the list can be done when the head is defined:
Node *head = nullptr;
or
Node *head = NULL;
So you can exclude function initNode from your design of the list.
Also in your code there is no need to specify the elaborated type name for the structure Node that is to specify keyword struct before name Node.
Function addNode shall change the original value of head. In your function realization you change only the copy of head passed as argument to the function.
The function could look as:
void addNode(Node **head, int n)
{
Node *NewNode = new Node {n, *head};
*head = NewNode;
}
Or if your compiler does not support the new syntax of initialization then you could write
void addNode(Node **head, int n)
{
Node *NewNode = new Node;
NewNode->x = n;
NewNode->next = *head;
*head = NewNode;
}
Or instead of using a pointer to pointer you could use a reference to pointer to Node. For example,
void addNode(Node * &head, int n)
{
Node *NewNode = new Node {n, head};
head = NewNode;
}
Or you could return an updated head from the function:
Node * addNode(Node *head, int n)
{
Node *NewNode = new Node {n, head};
head = NewNode;
return head;
}
And in main write:
head = addNode(head, 5);
The addNode function needs to be able to change head. As it's written now simply changes the local variable head (a parameter).
Changing the code to
void addNode(struct Node *& head, int n){
...
}
would solve this problem because now the head parameter is passed by reference and the called function can mutate it.
head is defined inside the main as follows.
struct Node *head = new Node;
But you are changing the head in addNode() and initNode() functions only. The changes are not reflected back on the main.
Make the declaration of the head as global and do not pass it to functions.
The functions should be as follows.
void initNode(int n){
head->x = n;
head->next = NULL;
}
void addNode(int n){
struct Node *NewNode = new Node;
NewNode-> x = n;
NewNode->next = head;
head = NewNode;
}
I think that, to make sure the indeep linkage of each node in the list, the addNode method must be like this:
void addNode(struct node *head, int n) {
if (head->Next == NULL) {
struct node *NewNode = new node;
NewNode->value = n;
NewNode->Next = NULL;
head->Next = NewNode;
}
else
addNode(head->Next, n);
}
Use:
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
struct Node
{
int num;
Node *next;
};
Node *head = NULL;
Node *tail = NULL;
void AddnodeAtbeggining(){
Node *temp = new Node;
cout << "Enter the item";
cin >> temp->num;
temp->next = NULL;
if (head == NULL)
{
head = temp;
tail = temp;
}
else
{
temp->next = head;
head = temp;
}
}
void addnodeAtend()
{
Node *temp = new Node;
cout << "Enter the item";
cin >> temp->num;
temp->next = NULL;
if (head == NULL){
head = temp;
tail = temp;
}
else{
tail->next = temp;
tail = temp;
}
}
void displayNode()
{
cout << "\nDisplay Function\n";
Node *temp = head;
for(Node *temp = head; temp != NULL; temp = temp->next)
cout << temp->num << ",";
}
void deleteNode ()
{
for (Node *temp = head; temp != NULL; temp = temp->next)
delete head;
}
int main ()
{
AddnodeAtbeggining();
addnodeAtend();
displayNode();
deleteNode();
displayNode();
}
In a code there is a mistake:
void deleteNode ()
{
for (Node * temp = head; temp! = NULL; temp = temp-> next)
delete head;
}
It is necessary so:
for (; head != NULL; )
{
Node *temp = head;
head = temp->next;
delete temp;
}
Here is my implementation.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
template< class T>
struct node{
T m_data;
node* m_next_node;
node(T t_data, node* t_node) :
m_data(t_data), m_next_node(t_node){}
~node(){
std::cout << "Address :" << this << " Destroyed" << std::endl;
}
};
template<class T>
class linked_list {
public:
node<T>* m_list;
linked_list(): m_list(nullptr){}
void add_node(T t_data) {
node<T>* _new_node = new node<T>(t_data, nullptr);
_new_node->m_next_node = m_list;
m_list = _new_node;
}
void populate_nodes(node<T>* t_node) {
if (t_node != nullptr) {
std::cout << "Data =" << t_node->m_data
<< ", Address =" << t_node->m_next_node
<< std::endl;
populate_nodes(t_node->m_next_node);
}
}
void delete_nodes(node<T>* t_node) {
if (t_node != nullptr) {
delete_nodes(t_node->m_next_node);
}
delete(t_node);
}
};
int main()
{
linked_list<float>* _ll = new linked_list<float>();
_ll->add_node(1.3);
_ll->add_node(5.5);
_ll->add_node(10.1);
_ll->add_node(123);
_ll->add_node(4.5);
_ll->add_node(23.6);
_ll->add_node(2);
_ll->populate_nodes(_ll->m_list);
_ll->delete_nodes(_ll->m_list);
delete(_ll);
return 0;
}
link list by using node class and linked list class
this is just an example not the complete functionality of linklist, append function and printing a linklist is explained in the code
code :
#include<iostream>
using namespace std;
Node class
class Node{
public:
int data;
Node* next=NULL;
Node(int data)
{
this->data=data;
}
};
link list class named as ll
class ll{
public:
Node* head;
ll(Node* node)
{
this->head=node;
}
void append(int data)
{
Node* temp=this->head;
while(temp->next!=NULL)
{
temp=temp->next;
}
Node* newnode= new Node(data);
// newnode->data=data;
temp->next=newnode;
}
void print_list()
{ cout<<endl<<"printing entire link list"<<endl;
Node* temp= this->head;
while(temp->next!=NULL)
{
cout<<temp->data<<endl;
temp=temp->next;
}
cout<<temp->data<<endl;;
}
};
main function
int main()
{
cout<<"hello this is an example of link list in cpp using classes"<<endl;
ll list1(new Node(1));
list1.append(2);
list1.append(3);
list1.print_list();
}
thanks ❤❤❤
screenshot https://i.stack.imgur.com/C2D9y.jpg