I was trying to implement singly linked list using share_ptr. Here is the implementation...
Below is the node class...
template<typename T>
class Node
{
public:
T value;
shared_ptr<Node<T>> next;
Node() : value(0), next(nullptr){};
Node(T value) : value(value), next(nullptr){};
~Node() { cout << "In Destructor: " << value << endl; };
};
Below is the linked list class...
template<typename T>
class LinkedList
{
private:
size_t m_size;
shared_ptr<Node<T>> head;
shared_ptr<Node<T>> tail;
public:
LinkedList() : m_size(0), head(nullptr) {};
void push_front(T value)
{
shared_ptr<Node<T>> temp = head;
head = make_shared<Node<T>>(Node<T>(value));
head->next = temp;
m_size++;
if (m_size == 1)
tail = head;
}
void pop_front()
{
if (m_size != 0)
{
// Here I am having doubt------------------------!!!
//shared_ptr<Node<T>> temp = head;
head = head->next;
m_size--;
if (m_size == 0)
tail = nullptr;
}
}
bool empty()
{
return (m_size == 0) ? true : false;
}
T front()
{
if (m_size != 0)
return head->value;
}
};
My question is, am I using the shared_ptr properly for allocating a node? If not, how should I use the shared_ptr to allocate and how should I delete the node in the pop_front method?
I believe this belongs on code review.
Most importantly: Why are you using shared_ptr? shared_ptr means the ownership of an object is unclear. This is not the case for linked lists: Every node owns the next. You can express that using unique_ptr which is easier and more efficient.
pop_front seems to be functioning correctly. You may consider throwing an exception or an assertion instead of doing nothing when using pop_front on an empty list.
front is more problematic. If the list is empty you most likely get a garbage object.
What is the significance of tail? It does not seem to be used for anything and since you cannot go backwards there is no real point to getting the tail.
make_shared<Node<T>>(Node<T>(value)) should be make_shared<Node<T>>(value) instead. make_shared<Node<T>>(value) creates a Node using value as the parameter for the constructor. make_shared<Node<T>>(Node<T>(value)) creates a Node with value as the parameter and then creates a new Node with the temporary Node as parameter and then destroys the first Node.
You are missing the copy and move constructor and assignment and move assignment operators.
After you are satisfied with your list implementation consider using std::forward_list instead.
Related
I am unable to get the std::map find to locate the correct row in the std::map. The key is a class pointer and I have created a struct (tdEcApplDataMapEq) to compare the class's binary arrays for a match.'
The problem is it doesn't work. I call FoEcApplData::operator== when the find starts. It says the first entry does not a match and then the find returns out pointing to the first item on the std::map list. There is no attempt by find to search the other map entries. Also the one match test failed (false), so why is find saying its a match?
This probably has something to do with the std::map declaration. std::map says the third argument is for std::less, but I am doing a == vs. <.
If I change it to do < the same this happens. It enters FoEcApplData::operator< which return a true on the first check and find search stops with the search pointing to the 1st entry in the list.
How do I get find() to use the custom struct for the search?
My example adds 10 rows to FdTEcApplDataMap. It copies the CDH_DISABLE_XACT182 class into hold for the search later. I then do the find() test using hold as the search key.
Inside entry1
Inside entry2
Inside entry3<== this is the one I am searching for
Inside entry4
Inside entry5
Inside entry6
Inside entry7
Inside entry8
Inside entry9
Inside entry10
Inside entry1
This is the find:
auto hazard = ExcludedCmdDict.find(&hold);
if(hazard != ExcludedCmdDict.end())
{
std::cout << "found it " << hazard->second << std::endl;
}
This is the compare function being used:
bool FoEcApplData::operator==( const FoEcApplData& FoEcApplDataObject) const {
if(myNumOfBytes <= FoEcApplDataObject.NumOfBytes())
{
const EcTOctet* temp;
temp = FoEcApplDataObject.Data() ;
for(EcTInt i = 0; i < myNumOfBytes ; i++)
{
if(myData[i] != temp[i])
{
return false ;
}
}
return true;
}
else // myNumOfBytes > FoEcApplDataObject.NumOfBytes()
{
const EcTOctet* temp;
temp = FoEcApplDataObject.Data() ;
for(EcTInt i = 0; i < FoEcApplDataObject.NumOfBytes(); i++)
{
if(myData[i] != temp[i])
{
return false ;
}
}
return true;
}
}
This is the declaration for the std::map.
/*
Custom less for find on the FdTEcApplDataMap.
Needed since we are using pointers.
Returns - true - match, false - no match
node - pointer to the item you are looking for
node2 - pointer to an item on the list
*/
struct tdEcApplDataMapEq {
bool operator()(FoEcApplData *const& node, FoEcApplData *const& node2) const
{
return *node == *node2;
}
};
typedef std::map< FoEcApplData *, std::string, tdEcApplDataMapEq> FdTEcApplDataMap;
std::map expects the compare function to work like std::less. You need to use something along the lines of:
struct tdEcApplDataMapEq {
bool operator()(FoEcApplData *const& node, FoEcApplData *const& node2) const
{
return (*node < *node2); // Implement operator<() function for FoEcApplData
}
};
While at it, change the name of the struct to reflect the fact that it is trying to compute "less than".
struct tdEcApplDataMapLess {
bool operator()(FoEcApplData *const& node, FoEcApplData *const& node2) const
{
return (*node < *node2); // Implement operator<() function for FoEcApplData
}
};
As a thought exercise I am trying to implement an iterative tree (binary or binary search tree) copy function.
It is my understanding that it can be achieved trivially:
with a single stack
without using a wrapper (that contains references to the copy and original nodes)
without a node having a reference to it's parent (would a parent reference in a node be counter to a true definition of a tree [which I believe is a DAG]?)
I have written different implementations that meet the inverse of the above constraints but I am uncertain how to approach the problem with the constraints.
I did not see anything in Algorithms 4/e and have not seen anything online (beyond statements of how trivial it is). I considered using the concepts from in order and post order of a current/previous var but I did not see a way to track accurately when popping the stack. I also briefly considered a hash map but I feel this is still just extra storage like the extra stack.
Any help in understanding the concepts/idioms behind the approach that I am not seeing is gratefully received.
Thanks in advance.
Edit:
Some requests for what I've tried so far. Here is the 2 stack solution which I believe is supposed to be able to turn into the 1 stack the most trivially.
It's written in C++. I am new to the language (but not programming) and teaching myself using C++ Primer 5/e (Lippman, Lajole, Moo) [C++11] and the internet. If any of the code from a language perspective is wrong, please let me know (although I'm aware Code Review Stack Exchange is the place for an actual review).
I have a template Node that is used by other parts of the code.
template<typename T>
struct Node;
typedef Node<std::string> tree_node;
typedef std::shared_ptr<tree_node> shared_ptr_node;
template<typename T>
struct Node final {
public:
const T value;
const shared_ptr_node &left = m_left;
const shared_ptr_node &right = m_right;
Node(const T value, const shared_ptr_node left = nullptr, const shared_ptr_node right = nullptr) : value(value), m_left(left), m_right (right) {}
void updateLeft(const shared_ptr_node node) {
m_left = node;
}
void updateRight(const shared_ptr_node node) {
m_right = node;
}
private:
shared_ptr_node m_left;
shared_ptr_node m_right;
};
And then the 2 stack implementation.
shared_ptr_node iterativeCopy2Stacks(const shared_ptr_node &node) {
const shared_ptr_node newRoot = std::make_shared<tree_node>(node->value);
std::stack<const shared_ptr_node> s;
s.push(node);
std::stack<const shared_ptr_node> copyS;
copyS.push(newRoot);
shared_ptr_node original = nullptr;
shared_ptr_node copy = nullptr;
while (!s.empty()) {
original = s.top();
s.pop();
copy = copyS.top();
copyS.pop();
if (original->right) {
s.push(original->right);
copy->updateRight(std::make_shared<tree_node>(original->right->value));
copyS.push(copy->right);
}
if (original->left) {
s.push(original->left);
copy->updateLeft(std::make_shared<tree_node>(original->left->value));
copyS.push(copy->left);
}
}
return newRoot;
}
I'm not fluent in c++, so you'll have to settle with pseudocode:
node copy(treenode n):
if n == null
return null
node tmp = clone(n) //no deep clone!!!
stack s
s.push(tmp)
while !s.empty():
node n = s.pop()
if n.left != null:
n.left = clone(n.left)
s.push(n.left)
if n.right != null:
n.right = clone(n.right)
s.push(n.right)
return tmp
Note that clone(node) is not a deep-clone. The basic idea is to start with a shallow-clone of the root, then iterate over all children of that node and replace those nodes (still references to the original node) by shallow copies, replace those nodes children, etc.. This algorithm traverses the tree in a DFS-manner. In case you prefer BFS (for whatever reason) you could just replace the stack by a queue. Another advantage of this code: it can be altered with a few minor changes to work for arbitrary trees.
A recursive version of this algorithm (in case you prefer recursive code over my horrible prosa):
node copyRec(node n):
if n.left != null:
n.left = clone(n.left)
copyRec(n.left)
if n.right != null:
n.right = clone(n.right)
copyRec(n.right)
return n
node copy(node n):
return copyRec(clone(n))
EDIT:
If you want to have a look at working code, I've created an implementation in python.
I have this program that I downloaded from the internet. If I add the clear at the end, it crashes with this message:
idf#idf-Satellite-C55t-A ~/Documents/BOOST_INTRUSIVE/Intrusive1/bin/Debug $ ./Intrusive1
Intrusive1: /usr/local/include/boost/intrusive/detail/utilities.hpp:366: void boost::intrusive::detail::destructor_impl(Hook&, boost::intrusive::detail::link_dispatch<(boost::intrusive::link_mode_type)1u>) [with Hook = boost::intrusive::generic_hook<boost::intrusive::get_list_node_algo<void*>, boost::intrusive::member_tag, (boost::intrusive::link_mode_type)1u, (boost::intrusive::base_hook_type)0u>]: Assertion `!hook.is_linked()' failed.
Aborted
idf#idf-Satellite-C55t-A ~/Documents/BOOST_INTRUSIVE/Intrusive1/bin/Debug $
Not sure what that all means. I am hoping to clear all the items, and that the contents get deleted.
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/intrusive/list.hpp>
using namespace boost::intrusive;
class MyClass : public list_base_hook<> //This is a derivation hook
{
int anInt;
public:
//This is a member hook
list_member_hook<> member_hook_;
MyClass(int i)
: anInt(i)
{}
};
//Define a list that will store MyClass using the public base hook
typedef list<MyClass> BaseList;
//Define a list that will store MyClass using the public member hook
typedef list< MyClass
, member_hook< MyClass, list_member_hook<>, &MyClass::member_hook_>
> MemberList;
int main()
{
typedef std::vector<MyClass>::iterator VectIt;
//Create several MyClass objects, each one with a different value
std::vector<MyClass> values;
for(int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
values.push_back(MyClass(i));
BaseList baselist;
MemberList memberlist;
//Now insert them in the reverse order in the base hook list
for(VectIt it(values.begin()), itend(values.end()); it != itend; ++it)
baselist.push_front(*it);
//Now insert them in the same order as in vector in the member hook list
for(VectIt it(values.begin()), itend(values.end()); it != itend; ++it)
memberlist.push_back(*it);
//Now test lists
{
BaseList::reverse_iterator rbit(baselist.rbegin());
MemberList::iterator mit(memberlist.begin());
VectIt it(values.begin()), itend(values.end());
//Test the objects inserted in the base hook list
for(; it != itend; ++it, ++rbit)
if(&*rbit != &*it) return 1;
//Test the objects inserted in the member hook list
for(it = values.begin(); it != itend; ++it, ++mit)
if(&*mit != &*it) return 1;
values.clear();
//Now delete all the values. Do they dissapear from all containers?
//Now insert them in the reverse order in the base hook list
//for(VectIt it(values.begin()), itend(values.end()); it != itend; ++it)
// ;
//std::cout << values.size();
//std::cout << baselist.size();
//std::cout << memberlist.size();
}
return 0;
}
Intrusive containers don't own their elements. The elements must be stored out-of-band.
What you're doing is delete the elements, while they're still logically inserted into (several) intrusive collections (i.e. they are linked through their intrusive hooks).
In safe mode, Boost Intrusive will actually diagnose this in the destructor of the hook structs, which is why you get the error message.
See also: auto-unlink hooks
I have this code which works fine in VS 2013 but doesn't compile in either GCC 4.8 or clang 3.3!
AND_end(c)->next = new ListNode<Point>{ b->val };
The error message is the following: "cannot convert from "Point" to "int".
Now, gradually, member val of b is a Point:
struct Point
{
int x;
int y;
double distance(const Point& other) const
{
if (this == &other)
return 0.;
return std::sqrt(std::pow(other.y - y, 2.) + std::pow(other.x - x, 2.));
}
bool operator==(const Point& other)
{
return x == other.x && y == other.y;
}
bool operator!=(const Point& other)
{
return !(*this == other);
}
};
b is a Line:
using Line = ListNode<Point>*;
a ListNode is a typical node for a singly linked list:
template<typename T>
struct ListNode
{
T val; // Value
ListNode* next = nullptr; // Next node in the list
// Constructor: takes a value of type T and optionally a pointer to the next node
explicit ListNode(T v, ListNode* n = nullptr)
: val{ v }, next{ n }
{
// Empty body, both member variables are initialized already
}
};
So, the line of code that doesn't compile should do the following: create a new ListNode, with T = Point, by supplying to the explicit ListNode constructor its first (and only) argument T v, which is a Point (b->val is a Point). This argument will be copied into the ListNode member val by copy, using the default copy constructor.
What seems to happen in both GCC and clang is that b->val is supplied to the Point constructor, hence the error message above (and for the sake of completeness, and additional warning is given: "missing field 'y' initializer").
VC++12 seems to get it all right instead.
So, what's up? Am I missing anything obvious (maybe, happens from time to time) or is there a nasty problem here?
I think the problem is, you do not have copy constructor for Point, therefore, in this line,
explicit ListNode(T v, ListNode* n = nullptr)
: val{ v }, next{ n }
since there's no copy constructor, val{v} will try to initialize by aggregate.
From 8.5.1,
An aggregate is an array or a class (Clause 9) with no user-provided
constructors.
When an aggregate is initialized by an initializer list,
as specified in 8.5.4, the elements of the initializer list are taken
as initializers for the members of the aggregate, in increasing
subscript or member order. Each member is copy-initialized from the
corresponding initializer-clause.
For a point type, the aggregate initialization shall be val {v.x, v.y}.
Or, you can implement a copy constructor for Point class.
GCC & Clang are correct. VS is wrong and it should reject your code.
I am trying to implement a simple singly linked list of integers which are to be sorted upon insertion in Visual Studio c++ 2010 express.
The problem is that when I create a new node and call the .getValue() function on it, the correct number is returned, however somehow that is being lost when I try calling getValue() on a node already in the list. The node might not be inserted into the list correctly, however I can't find why that would be the case. Some other value which looks like a reference value or something is displayed instead of the correct value.
I added current to the watch window when debugging but was still unable to see any of my variables other than the give value to be inserted. I am new to visual studio so I'm not sure if I'm missing something there. Here is my code:
#include "Node.h";
#include <iostream>
//namespace Linked{
//The first two constructors would be the first in the linked list.
Node::Node(void){
value = 0;
next = 0;
}
Node::Node(int setValue){
value = setValue;
next = 0;
}
Node::Node(int setValue,Node *nextNode){
value = setValue;
next = nextNode;
}
Node * Node::getNext(){
return next;
}
void Node::setNext(Node newNext){
next = &newNext;
}
int Node::getValue(){
return value;
}
bool Node::isEqual(Node check){
return value==check.getValue()&&next == check.getNext();
}
/*
int main(){
int firstInt, secondInt;
std::cin>>firstInt;
Node first = Node(firstInt);
std::cout<<"Enter second int: ";
std::cin>>secondInt;
Node second = Node(secondInt, &first);
std::cout<<"Second: "<<second.getValue()<<"\nFirst: "<<(*second.getNext()).getValue();
system("pause");
}*/
Here is the linked list:
//LinkedList.cpp
LinkedList::LinkedList(void)
{
head = 0;
size = 0;
}
LinkedList::LinkedList(int value)
{
head = &Node(value);
size = 1;
}
void LinkedList::insert(int value){
if(head == 0){
Node newNode = Node(value);
head = &newNode;
std::cout<<"Adding "<<(*head).getValue()<<" as head.\n";
}else{
std::cout<<"Adding ";
Node current = *head;
int numChecked = 0;
while(size<=numChecked && (((*current.getNext()).getValue())<value)){
current = (*(current.getNext()));
numChecked++;
}
if(current.isEqual(*head)&¤t.getValue()<value){
Node newNode = Node(value, ¤t);
std::cout<<newNode.getValue()<<" before the head: "<<current.getValue()<<"\n";
}else{
Node newNode = Node(value,current.getNext());
current.setNext(newNode);
std::cout<<newNode.getValue()<<" after "<<current.getValue()<<"\n";
}
}
size++;
}
void LinkedList::remove(int){
}
void LinkedList::print(){
Node current = *head;
std::cout<<current.getValue()<<" is the head";
int numPrinted = 0;
while(numPrinted<(size-1)){
std::cout<<(current.getValue())<<", ";
current = (*(current.getNext()));
numPrinted++;
}
}
int main(){
int a[5] = {30,20,25,13,2};
LinkedList myList = LinkedList();
int i;
for(i = 0 ; i<5 ; i++){
myList.insert(a[i]);
}
myList.print();
system("pause");
}
Any guidance would be greatly appreciated!
When you create nodes in insert, you're allocating them off the stack, which means that they'll be lost after the function returns.
Get them off the heap with:
Node * newNode=new Node(value);
When you use:
Node newNode=Node(value);
You're allocating that object on the stack, which means that pointers:
&newNode
to it are only valid until that function returns. If you use heap memory this is no longer an issue, but it does mean that you have to implement a destructor for your list which goes through and deletes each node.