I'm writing some C++ code for a simple "Node" class. This is basically a class used to manage a linear linked list. I normally perform this with a struct but I'm trying get a better handle of OOP and classes. What I've got thus far for the Node class is (note: the String class is my version (trimmed down) of a typical "string" class, it implements a copy constructor, assignment overload, destructor, etc. In testing it has worked great and seems completely self contained):
class Node {
public:
//Constructor
//-----------
Node() : next_(0) {} //inline (String constructor called)
//Destructor
//----------
~Node();
//Copy Constructor
//----------------
Node(const Node &);
//Operator Overload: =
//---------------------
//In conjunction with copy constructor. Protects Class.
Node & operator=(const Node &);
private:
String relatedEntry_;
Node * next_;
};
Creating one instance works fine (ie. Node node;) but when I create an instance that calls the Copy Constructor I end up with segfaults at the very end of my program, as it's cleaning up. The difference between using a struct for a linked list vs a class plays tricks with me a little and I think I'm missing something key here. Here is the implementation for the Default Constructor, Copy Constructor, and Overloaded Assignment Operator:
//Constructor inlined
//Destructor
Node::~Node()
{
Node * curr = next_;
while (curr) //cycle through LL and delete nodes
{
Node * temp = curr; //hold onto current
curr = curr->next_; //increment one
delete temp; //delete former current
}
}
//Copy Constructor
Node::Node(const Node & cp)
{
std::cout << "in CopyCon" << std::endl;
relatedEntry_ = cp.relatedEntry_; //calls String class copy constructor/assignment overload
Node * curr = cp.next_; //for clarity, for traversal
while (curr) //copies related entry structure
{
Node * oldNext = next_;
next_ = new Node;
next_->next_ = oldNext; //'next' field (assign prior)
next_->relatedEntry_ = curr->relatedEntry_; //String class copy
curr = curr->next_; //increment
}
}
//OO: =
Node & Node::operator=(const Node & cp)
{
std::cout << "in OO: =" << std::endl;
if (this == &cp)
return *this; //self assignment
delete next_; //delete LL
relatedEntry_ = cp.relatedEntry_; //String Class Assignment Overload
Node * curr = cp.next_; //for clarity, for traversal
while (curr)
{
Node * oldNext = next_; //hold onto old
next_ = new Node;
next_->next_ = oldNext; //set next to old
next_->relatedEntry_ = curr->relatedEntry_; //set this string to cp string
curr = curr->next_; //increment
}
return *this;
}
Note that using the Overloaded Assignment Function seems to work fine (no segfaults) even though it's virtually the same code... I'm assuming it has to do with the fact that both objects are already initialized before the assignment takes place?
//This seems to work ok
Node node1;
Node node2;
node2 = node1;
I've been at this bug for a couple of hours and I have got to get some rest. I'd really appreciate any insight into this. Thanks.
In the copy constructor loop, you have this line:
Node * oldNext = next_;
However, in the first round in the loop the value of next_ can by, well, anything and most likely not NULL. This means that the last node will a have a non-null pointer.
Initialize it to NULL before the loop and it should work.
You have the concepts of a List and a Node mixed up. You should write a List class which manages a sequence of Nodes. Your Node destructor is more or less how your List destructor should look, Node itself doesn't need a destructor.
What is specifically going wrong is that your Node destructor recursively calls itself when you write delete temp; this deletes the rest of the sequence of nodes but then your Node destructor loops around and tries to delete them again.
Related
I have a new project where I am creating a class for an entry in a doubly linked list. I am utilizing object-oriented style, which I have limited experience with. The constructors and functions were defined in a separate file.
Header File:
#ifndef LISTENTRY_H_JDP
#define LISTENTRY_H_JDP
#include "DATAClass.h"
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
typedef DATAClass l;
typedef class LISTEntry *listptr;
class LISTEntry
{
DATAClass data;
listptr prev;
listptr next;
public:
LISTEntry();
LISTEntry(DATAClass l);
LISTEntry(LISTEntry &le);
~LISTEntry();
LISTEntry getNext();
void setNext();
LISTEntry getPrev();
void setPrev();
DATAClass getData();
void setData(DATAClass d);
};
#endif // LISTENTRY_H_INCLUDED
Implementation File:
#include "LISTEntry.h"
LISTEntry::LISTEntry()
{
data = data;
prev = NULL;
next = NULL;
}
LISTEntry::LISTEntry(DATAClass l) //take an item of type l and convert it into a LISTEntry
{
data = l;
prev = NULL;
next = NULL;
}
LISTEntry::LISTEntry(LISTEntry &le)
{
data = le.getData();
prev = le.getPrev();
next = le.getNext();
}
LISTEntry::~LISTEntry()
{
}
LISTEntry LISTEntry::getNext()
{
return *next;
}
void LISTEntry::setNext()
{
next = new LISTEntry;
}
LISTEntry LISTEntry::getPrev()
{
return *prev;
}
void LISTEntry::setPrev()
{
prev = new LISTEntry;
}
DATAClass LISTEntry::getData()
{
return data;
}
void LISTEntry::setData(DATAClass d)
{
data = d;
}
The issue is my copy constructor, LISTEntry(LISTEntry &le). So far, I receive the error:
cannot convert 'LISTEntry' to 'listptr {aka LISTEntry*}'
I am also unsure about the get and set functions. I want them to link to new entries of the same type in the list. I guess I am having trouble with the implementation of pointers in the constructor. Can anyone help out?
You could solve the problem by removing the copy constructor, but this hides the problem that caused the error.
Unless l is poorly written (violates the Rules of Three or Five), there is no need for a copy constructor or destructor in LISTEntry. LISTEntry has no special resources of its own and should be able to observe the Rule of Zero. If l is broken, fix l, do not inflict its flaws on other classes.
But this is not what you want to do for a couple reasons.
The underlying problem causing the error message is prev = le.getPrev(); is attempting to assign a copy of the source's LISTEntry's previous node to the new LISTEntry's pointer to the previous node.
prev needs the address of a LISTEntry, not a LISTEntry.
In a linked list LISTEntry LISTEntry::getNext()and LISTEntry LISTEntry::getPrev() should almost certainly not return a copy of the node pointed at. You want to return the pointer. If you do not, you will find that iterating through the linked list is an adventure. You'll be operating on, possibly modifying, copies of nodes rather than the originals. Chaos ensues.
Change them to LISTEntry * LISTEntry::getNext() and remove the dereference in the return statement.
This solves the error, and a few more you hadn't found yet, but leaves you with a different problem, and the same one you'd have if you removed the copy constructor. You now have two LISTEntry with the same prev and next. This can make for an unstable list. With the copy you can blow the crap out of the original's list. Not cool. Be careful. You are actually better off NOT copying the the links and making the copy constructor:
LISTEntry::LISTEntry(const LISTEntry &le) // make everything const until proven otherwise
{
data = le.data; // this is a member function so it can access private variables
// no need for the accessor function
prev = nullptr;
next = nullptr;
}
You also need/want an assignment operator
LISTEntry & operator=(const LISTEntry &le)
{
if (this != &le)
{
data = le.data;
prev = nullptr;
next = nullptr;
}
}
You should also discuss
void LISTEntry::setNext()
{
next = new LISTEntry;
}
with your rubber duck. Ducky wants to know do you plan to link an existing node if you always create a new one? This will make it really hard to insert, remove and sort.
I am struggling to implement a copy constructor for a doubly linked list. The program compiles but I am running into an issue using the "push_back" function within the copy constructor to add the newly created nodes to the list. Below are the copy constructor and push_back functions in question.
List::List(const List& rhs) // Copy constructor
{
//this pointer is for the list that is being copied from
Node* rhsNodePtr;
//setting the new pointer to the first node of the old list
rhsNodePtr = rhs.first;
//looping until the end of the list
while(rhsNodePtr != nullptr){
//declaring new node to copy data into
Node* newNode = new Node("");
//copying node data from original list into new node
newNode->data = rhsNodePtr->data;
//adding new copied node to a new list
push_back(newNode->data);
//advancing the old list pointer location for the loop
rhsNodePtr = rhsNodePtr->next;
}
}
void List::push_back(string element)
{
Node* new_node = new Node(element);
if (last == nullptr) // List is empty
{
first = new_node;
last = new_node;
}
else
{
new_node->previous = last;
last->next = new_node;
last = new_node;
}
}
I apologize if I have omitted any relevant details. Please note that I am not just looking for a solution or correction but an explanation of why the push_back(); function is not working in my current implementation.
Edit: The while loop in the copy constructor gets stuck after the push_back function is called.
Edit: "First" and "last" are initialized in the List class declaration and both set to "nullptr" in the constructor.
Edit: After running through a debugger, I learned that there is an illegal memory access(segmentation fault) that occurs in the push_back function in the linelast->next = new_node;
You are not initializing last in the copy constructor. So the push_back gets called with garbage in it.
BTW I don't see the need for newNode and you don't free it. You can just push_back(rhsNodePtr->data); directly.
Your copy constructor is not initializing first and last (unless you are doing so in the class declaration, which you did not show), and it also leaks a Node on each loop iteration.
Try this instead:
List::List(const List& rhs)
: first(nullptr), last(nullptr) // <-- add this if needed
{
Node* rhsNodePtr = rhs.first;
while (rhsNodePtr) {
push_back(rhsNodePtr->data); // <-- no need to allocate a new Node for this call
rhsNodePtr = rhsNodePtr->next;
}
}
void List::push_back(string element)
{
Node* new_node = new Node(element);
new_node->previous = last;
new_node->next = nullptr; // <-- add this if needed
if (!first) first = new_node;
if (last) last->next = new_node;
last = new_node;
}
How to deal with memory leaking with template classes in C++?
In this code I defined 4 template classes:
class node and class linked_list make up a doubly linked list
class item and class bag just make up another doubly linked list
These template classes are designed to deal with objects of various classes.
In the main function, I first created a linked_list<string> and a bag<int> and everything is fine.
But when I try to make a bag<linked_list<string>>, problems arise.
I tried to trace back to see what happened, and I saw that in the function push_back in class bag, a destructor of linked_list has been called that erased all the data in the input v. I don't know why that happens.
Note that I overwrote the destructors for all classes and called className.~className() in the main function to prevent memory leaking.
And it does work to prevent memory leaking from ls_1 and bag_1.
I don't know which part of my code is wrong. Can somebody help me?
#include <iostream>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
//node and linked_list class make up a doubly linked list
template<class T> class node {
public:
T value;
node<T> * next;
node<T> * previous;
node<T>() { next = nullptr; previous = nullptr; }
node<T>(T v) { value = v; next = nullptr; previous = nullptr; }
~node<T>() { delete next; }
};
template<class T> class linked_list { //doubly linked list
public:
node<T> * head;
node<T> * tail;
linked_list<T>() { head = nullptr; tail = nullptr; }
~linked_list<T>() { delete head; }
void push_front(T v) { //insert an item to the front
node<T> * p = new node<T>(v);
p->next = head;
head = p;
if (tail == nullptr) {
tail = p;
}
}
};
//item and bag class just make up another doubly linked list
template<class X> class item {
public:
X value;
item<X> *next;
item<X> *previous;
item<X>(X v) { value = v; next = nullptr; previous = nullptr; }
~item<X>() { delete next; }
};
template<class X> class bag { //just another doubly linked list
public:
item<X> *last;
item<X> *first;
int num_items;
int size() { return num_items; }
bag() { last = nullptr; first = nullptr; num_items = 0; }
~bag() { delete first; }
void push_back(X v) { //insert an item to the back
item<X> * p = new item<X>(v);
if (num_items == 0) {
last = first = p;
}
else {
last->next = p;
p->previous = last;
last = p;
}
num_items++;
last->next = nullptr;
}
};
int main() {
//When using built-in classes (like strings) as input
//there's no problem at all
linked_list<string> ls_1;
ls_1.push_front("David");
ls_1.push_front("John");
bag<int> bag_1;
bag_1.push_back(1);
bag_1.push_back(2);
//Problems arise here when using user defined classes (linked_list) as input
//I traced back and found out that a destructor has been called
//that erases all the data in the input. Donno how that happens
bag<linked_list<string>> bag_string;
bag_string.push_back(ls_1);
//These lines are to prevent the memory leaking
//I overwrote destructors for linked_list and node class
//otherwise there's still memory leaking
ls_1.~linked_list();
bag_1.~bag();
bag_string.~bag();
_CrtDumpMemoryLeaks();
getchar();
getchar();
}
Implement node, linked_list, item, bag copy constructors and assignments or declare them as deleted. The default versions generated by the compiler do not do the deep copying and that leads to multiple deletes of same objects after they were copied.
Read the rule of three/five/zero for full details.
A bit off-topic, but making a list node delete its siblings is a classic gotcha: for a sufficiently long list it ends up calling ~node<T>() recursively until it exhausts the stack. And this is the reason node pointers cannot be smart-pointers.
A fix would be to have a default destructor for nodes and make the list destroy the nodes in a loop, rather than recursively.
You may also like to use the full list node as a head of the list that points to itself when empty. That removes that nullptr checking logic completely.
I tried to trace back to see what happened, and I saw that in the function push_back in class bag, a destructor of linked_list has been called that erased all the data in the input v
Yes, this happens because your bag::push_back() takes its argument by value. This means it creates a copy of the ls_1 you created in main. You have not specified how to "copy" a list, so the compiler generated this function (a copy constructor) automatically. It can do that because your linked_list only contains two pointers, so the compiler assumes (because you have not told it otherwise) that copying the pointers over is all that is necessary to generate a copy of a linked_list. Unfortunately, that is not correct.
You now have two lists that manage the same contents: The original ls_1 in main() and the function argument v in push_back() - they both contain the same pointers.
Then the same thing happens again in your item constructor: You make a local copy of the list that holds the same pointers as the first two.
You now have several list objects pointing to the same data. Each one will try to destroy the data once it dies. This results in undefined behavior.
To correct this, you need to figure out how copying of a list should work. This is (in part) what the rule linked in the other comment is about: If the destructor of your class is not trivial (i.e. the compiler-generated version would not be sufficient, most likely because you need to release a resource like allocated memory), you should/must always care about how to handle your class being copied around. The various mechanisms that may invoke copy-like behavior (assignment, copy constructor, plus move versions in newer C++) need to be specified (or forbidden) by you.
I keep getting a segmentation fault on my deep copy of a linked list. I use this deep copy in my Copy Contructor and my assignment operator (operator=) and have come to the conclusion that it is this that is seg faulting.
bigint::Node* bigint::deepcopy(bigint::Node* target){
bigint::Node* current = target;
bigint::Node*cpy = new Node;
cpy->digit = current->digit;
Node* const hd = cpy;
current = current->next;
while(current != nullptr){
bigint::Node* tmp = new Node;
tmp->digit = current->digit;
cpy->next = tmp;
cpy = cpy->next;
current = current->next;
}
return hd;
}
My Node struct looks like:
private:
struct Node{
int digit;
Node* next;
};
Node* head;
static Node* deepcopy(Node* target);
My class is closed and all, just showing what is in private that is related to this function. Thanks in advance for any advice.
When you use your deepcopy function, you must make sure that the paramater target is not nullptr. So, you should check if (target == nullptr) at the beginning of your deepcopy function.
Also, after the while loop finished, you should set the tail of your new list to nullptr.
From the information you post, it seems you have use ->digit or ->next on a null pointer.
If you still get this error, you'd better provide a example code.
I'm writing a program as an assignment for school and I though I had worked out all the bugs until I decided to call my copy constructor. The program is interactive (CLI) which basically has two moduals: a .h and .cpp file for the LList class and a .h and .cpp file for the structure of the program and also a 3rd cpp file just for main(). It is suppose to be a program for a hydropower engineering company (fake company) in which the LList nodes hold data for their annual water flow in a river(year and flow). Here is some insight on the class:
//list.h
struct ListItem {
int year;
double flow;
};
struct Node {
ListItem item;
Node *next;
};
class FlowList {
public:
FlowList();
// PROMISES: Creates empty list
FlowList(const FlowList& source);
// REQUIRES: source refers to an existing List object
// PROMISES: create the copy of source
~FlowList();
// PROMISES: Destroys an existing list.
FlowList& operator =(const FlowList& rhs);
// REQUIRES: rhs refers to an existing FlowList object
// PROMISES: the left hand side object becomes the copy of rhs
//....Other member functions
private:
// always points to the first node in the list.
Node *headM;
// Initially is set to NULL, but it may point to any node.
Node *cursorM;
//For node manipulation within interactive CLI
void copy(const FlowList& source);
void destroy();
I belive the memory leak or collision is taking place somewhere within the copy function but cant pin point where.
//list.cpp
FlowList::FlowList() : headM(0), cursorM(0) {}
FlowList::FlowList(const FlowList& source)
{
copy(source);
}
FlowList::~FlowList()
{
destroy();
}
FlowList& FlowList::operator =(const FlowList& rhs)
{
if (this != &rhs)
{
destroy();
copy(rhs);
}
return (*this);
}
//...more function definitions
void FlowList::copy(const FlowList& source)
{
if (source.headM == NULL)
{
headM = NULL;
cursorM = NULL;
return;
}
Node* new_node = new Node;
assert(new_node);
new_node->item.year = source.headM->item.year;
new_node->item.flow = source.headM->item.flow;
new_node->next = NULL;
headM = new_node;
Node* thisptr = new_node;
for(Node* srcptr = source.headM->next; srcptr != NULL; srcptr = srcptr->next)
{
new_node = new Node;
assert(new_node);
new_node->item.year = srcptr->item.year;
new_node->item.flow = srcptr->item.flow;
new_node->next = NULL;
thisptr->next = new_node;
thisptr = thisptr->next;
}
}
void FlowList::destroy()
{
Node* ptr = headM;
Node* post = headM->next;
while (ptr != NULL)
{
delete ptr;
ptr = post;
if (post)
post = ptr->next;
}
headM = NULL;
}
The program works fine if I create a FlowList object, fill it with data from a .dat file; i can then manipulate the data within the program (display, perform calculations, add to the list, remove from list and save data to file) but program crashes (segmentation fault) if I create another FlowList object (within main.cpp).
Any help would be really appreciated.
The initial thing I spot is that it looks like your destroy() function will always segmentation fault if the list is empty:
void FlowList::destroy()
{
Node* ptr = headM;
Node* post = headM->next;
//...
}
If the list is empty, headM is NULL and then you're trying to do headM->next which will always produce a segmentation fault in that case.
I think you might also have a memory leak in your copy constructor if you pass in an empty list. If you look at this code:
void FlowList::copy(const FlowList& source)
{
if (source.headM == NULL)
{
headM = NULL;
cursorM = NULL;
return;
}
//...
}
What if the current list contained 20 items and source is an empty list? You set the current list's headM and cursorM to NULL, but you never call delete on any of the nodes in the current list that you originally used new to create. You probably want to work your destroy() function somewhere into your copy constructor too (you did it for the operator= function).
The last thing I noticed is that you don't initialize cursorM for a non-empty list in your copy() function (#Akusete pointed that out as well). I think I'd recommend that at the beginning of your copy constructor, just initialize cursorM and headM to NULL just to cover your bases.
It looks like you're really close, I think you just really need to think through the boundary case of dealing with empty lists (both on the LHS and RHS) and you'll probably find most of these bugs. Good luck!