I agree with the comments about using the STL containers for handling your list dirty work. However, this being Stack Overflow, we're all here to learn something.
Here's how you would normally insert into a list:
typedef struct _Node {
void * data;
Node * next;
} Node;
Node * insert( Node * root, void * data ) {
Node * list = root;
Node * listSave = root;
while ( list != null ) {
if ( data < list->data ) {
break;
}
listSave = list;
list = list->next;
}
Node * newNode = (Node*)malloc( sizeof(Node) );
newNode->data = data;
/* Insert at the beginning of the list */
if ( listSave == list ) {
newNode->next = list;
list = newNode;
}
/* Insert at the end of the list */
else if ( list == null ) {
listSave->next = newNode;
newNode->next = null;
list = root;
}
/* Insert at the middle of the list */
else {
listSave->next = newNode;
newNode->next = list;
list = root;
}
return list;
}
Notice all the extra checking you have to do depending on whether the insertion occurs at the beginning, end or middle of the list. Contrast this with the double pointer method:
void insert( Node ** proot, void * data ) {
Node ** plist = proot;
while ( *plist != null ) {
if ( data < (*plist)->data ) {
break;
}
plist = &(*plist)->next;
}
Node * newNode = (Node *)malloc( sizeof(Node) );
newNode->data = data;
newNode->next = *plist;
*plist = newNode;
}
As Evan Teran indicated, this works well for singly linked lists, but when it's doubly linked, you end up going through just as many if not more manipulations as the single pointer case. The other draw back is that you're going through two pointer dereferences for each traversal. While the code looks cleaner, it probably doesn't run as quickly as the single pointer code.
