C generic linked-list

问题:

I have a generic linked-list that holds data of type void* I am trying to populate my list with type struct employee, eventually I would like to destruct the object struct employee as well.

Consider this generic linked-list header file (i have tested it with type char*):

struct accListNode                 //the nodes of a linked-list for any data type
{
  void *data;                     //generic pointer to any data type
  struct accListNode *next;       //the next node in the list
};

struct accList                    //a linked-list consisting of accListNodes
{
  struct accListNode *head;
  struct accListNode *tail;
  int size;
};

void accList_allocate(struct accList *theList);           //allocate the accList and set to NULL
void appendToEnd(void *data, struct accList *theList);    //append data to the end of the accList
void removeData(void *data, struct accList *theList);         //removes data from accList
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consider the employee structure

struct employee 
{ 
   char name[20]; 
   float wageRate; 
} 

Now consider this sample testcase that will be called from main():

    void test2()
    {
      struct accList secondList;
      struct employee *emp = Malloc(sizeof(struct employee));
      emp->name = "Dan";
      emp->wageRate =.5;

      struct employee *emp2 = Malloc(sizeof(struct employee));
      emp2->name = "Stan";
      emp2->wageRate = .3;

      accList_allocate(&secondList);
      appendToEnd(emp, &secondList);
      appendToEnd(emp2, &secondList);

      printf("Employee: %s\n", ((struct employee*)secondList.head->data)->name);   //cast to type struct employee
      printf("Employee2: %s\n", ((struct employee*)secondList.tail->data)->name);  
    }

Why does the answer that I posted below solve my problem? I believe it has something to do with pointers and memory allocation. The function Malloc() that i use is a custom malloc that checks for NULL being returned.

Here is a link to my entire generic linked list implementation: https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/13007/c-linked-list-implementation

回答1:

The problem is this accList_allocate() and your use of it.

struct accList secondList;
accList_allocate(&secondList);

In the original test2() secondList is memory on the stack. &secondList is a pointer to that memory. When you call accList_allocate() a copy of the pointer is passed in pointing at the stack memory. Malloc() then returns a chunk of memory and assigns it to the copy of the pointer, not the original secondList.

Coming back out, secondList is still pointing at uninitialised memory on the stack so the call to appendToEnd() fails.

The same happens with the answer except secondList just happens to be free of junk. Possibly by chance, possibly by design of the compiler. Either way it is not something you should rely on.

Either:

struct accList *secondList = NULL;

accList_allocate(&secondList);

And change accList_allocate()

accList_allocate(struct accList **theList) {
    *theList = Malloc(sizeof(struct accList));
    (*theList)->head = NULL;
    (*theList)->tail = NULL;
    (*theList)->size = 0;
}

OR

struct accList secondList;

accList_initialise(secondList);

With accList_allocate() changed to accList_initialise() because it does not allocate

accList_initialise(struct accList *theList) {
    theList->head = NULL;
    theList->tail = NULL;
    theList->size = 0;
}

回答2:

I think that your problem is this:

1. You've allocated secondList on the stack in your original test2 function.
2. The stack memory is probably dirty, so secondList requires initialization
3. Your accList_allocate function takes a pointer to the list, but then overwrites it with the Malloc call. This means that the pointer you passed in is never initialized.
4. When test2 tries to run, it hits a bad pointer (because the memory isn't initialized).

The reason that it works when you allocate it in main is that your C compiler probably zeros the stack when the program starts. When main allocates a variable on the stack, that allocation is persistent (until the program ends), so secondList is actually, and accidentally, properly initialized when you allocate it in main.

Your current accList_allocate doesn't actually initialize the pointer that's been passed in, and the rest of your code will never see the pointer that it allocates with Malloc. To solve your problem, I would create a new function: accList_initialize whose only job is to initialize the list:

void accList_initialize(struct accList* theList)
{
    // NO malloc
   theList->head = NULL;
   theList->tail = NULL;
   theList->size = 0;
}

Use this, instead of accList_allocate in your original test2 function. If you really want to allocate the list on the heap, then you should do so (and not mix it with a struct allocated on the stack). Have accList_allocate return a pointer to the allocated structure:

struct accList* accList_allocate(void)
{
   struct accList* theList = Malloc( sizeof(struct accList) );
   accList_initialize(theList);
   return theList;
}

回答3:

When I place the declaration and allocation of secondList in main() and put the rest in a function it works:

int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
  struct accList secondList;
  accList_allocate(&secondList);

  test2(&secondList);

  return 0;
}

void test2(struct accList *secondList)
{
  struct employee *emp = Malloc(sizeof(struct employee));
  struct employee *emp2 = Malloc(sizeof(struct employee));

  strcpy(emp->name, "Dan");
  emp->wageRate = .5;
  appendToEnd(emp, secondList);

  strcpy(emp2->name, "Stan");
  emp2->wageRate = .3;
  appendToEnd(emp2, secondList);

  printf("Employee: %s\n", ((struct employee*)secondList->head->data)->name);   //cast to type struct employee
  printf("Employee2: %s\n", ((struct employee*)secondList->tail->data)->name);  
  removeData(emp, secondList);
  printf("Head: %s\n", ((struct employee*)secondList->head->data)->name);
}

struct employee
{
   char name[20];
   float wageRate;
}

Here is a link to the entire implementation. https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/13007/c-linked-list-implementation

I have feeling this has something to do with pointers and allocation. Could somebody explain that part to me? Compare the code in the question to this code above.

Thanks!

回答4:

Two things I see wrong here based on the original code, in the above question,

What you've seen is undefined behaviour and arose from that is the bus error message as you were assigning a string literal to the variable, when in fact you should have been using the strcpy function, you've edited your original code accordinly so.. something to keep in mind in the future :)

The usage of the word Malloc is going to cause confusion, especially in peer-review, the reviewers are going to have a brain fart and say "whoa, what's this, should that not be malloc?" and very likely raise it up. (Basically, do not call custom functions that have similar sounding names as the C standard library functions)

You're not checking for the NULL, what if your souped up version of Malloc failed then emp is going to be NULL! Always check it no matter how trivial or your thinking is "Ah sher the platform has heaps of memory on it, 4GB RAM no problem, will not bother to check for NULL"

Have a look at this question posted elsewhere to explain what is a bus error.

Edit: Using linked list structures, in how the parameters in the function is called is crucial to the understanding of it. Notice the usage of &, meaning take the address of the variable that points to the linked list structure, and passing it by reference, not passing by value which is a copy of the variable. This same rule applies to usage of pointers also in general :)

You've got the parameters slightly out of place in the first code in your question, if you were using double-pointers in the parameter list then yes, using &secondList would have worked.

回答5:

It may depend on how your Employee structure is designed, but you should note that

strcpy(emp->name, "Dan");

and

emp->name = "Dan";

function differently. In particular, the latter is a likely source of bus errors because you generally cannot write to string literals in this way. Especially if your code has something like

name = "NONE"

or the like.

EDIT: Okay, so with the design of the employee struct, the problem is this:

You can't assign to arrays. The C Standard includes a list of modifiable lvalues and arrays are not one of them.

char name[20];
name = "JAMES" //illegal

strcpy is fine - it just goes to the memory address dereferenced by name[0] and copies "JAMES\0" into the memory there, one byte at a time.