linked-list

This post is divided to two major sections. The first section introduces the original test cases & results, and my thoughts about it. The second section details the modified test case, and its results. The original title of this topic was "Full iteration over an array significantly faster than with a linked list". The title was changed due to the newer test results (presented in Section Two). SECTION ONE: The Original Test Case For a full one-directional sequential traversal, it's known that the linked list and the array have similar performance, but due to the cache-friendliness (reference

This seems to be returning the correct answer, but I'm not sure if this is really the best way to go about things. It seems like I'm visiting the first n nodes too many times. Any suggestions? Note that I have to do this with a singly linked list. Node *findNodeFromLast( Node *head, int n ) { Node *currentNode; Node *behindCurrent; currentNode = head; for( int i = 0; i < n; i++ ) { if( currentNode->next ) { currentNode = currentNode->next; } else { return NULL; } } behindCurrent = head; while( currentNode->next ) { currentNode = currentNode->next; behindCurrent = behindCurrent->next; } return

I need a circular linked list, so I am wondering if LinkedList is a circular linked list? No. It is a doubly linked list, but not a circular linked list. See MSDN for details on this . LinkedList<T> makes a good foundation for your own circular linked list, however. But it does have a definite First and Last property, and will not enumerate around these, which a proper circular linked list will. Ady Kemp A quick solution to using it in a circular fashion, whenever you want to move the "next" piece in the list: current = current.Next ?? current.List.First; Where current is LinkedListNode<T> .

I'm trying to understand the Linux kernel linked list API. According to Linux Kernel Linked List I should initialize the list head by INIT_LIST_HEAD but here (Linux Kernel Program) it's suggested to use LIST_HEAD_INIT instead. Here's a working code I wrote, but I'm not sure if I did it in proper way. Could someone verify that it's OK? #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include "list.h" typedef struct edge_attr { int d; struct list_head list; } edge_attributes_t; typedef struct edge { int id; edge_attributes_t *attributes; } edge_t; int main () { int i; struct list_head *pos; edge

I am having trouble grasping the concepts of struct and the linked list data structure together. For example lets say we have have this code: a struct that has a worker's content and a linked list of these structs that contains nodes of each worker and a pointer to the next node(?). typedef struct Schedule { char name[10]; char description[10]; int hours; int workordernum; } Work; typedef struct linkedlist { struct Schedule work; struct linkedlist *next; } Node; The problem is how do you make a method that always adds a node in the beginning of the list, a method that adds it anywhere(middle)

Say we have an unsorted array and linked list. The worst case when searching for an element for both data structures would be O( n ), but my question is: Would the array still be way faster because of the use of spatial locality within the cache, or will the cache make use of branch locality allowing linked lists to be just as fast as any array ? My understanding for an array is that if an element is accessed, that block of memory and many of the surrounding blocks are then brought into the cache allowing for much faster memory accesses. My understanding for a linked list is that since the

When talking about the STL, I have several schoolmates telling me that "vectors are linked lists". I have another one arguing that if you call the erase() method with an iterator, it breaks the vector, since it's a linked list. They also tend to don't understand why I'm always arguing that vector are contiguous, just like any other array, and don't seem to understand what random access means. Are vector stricly contiguous just like regular arrays, or just at most contiguous ? (for example it will allocate several contiguous segments if the whole array doesn't fit). In silico I'm sorry to say

Considering I have two arrays for example: String[] array1 = new String[10]; int[] array2= new int[10]; So that inside a method I've computed two arrays, namely array1 & array2 and now I want to return both of these arrays. How should I go about it? I read here that I can make another class and define certain object types and encapsulate these arrays in that class constructor, but I'm still confused and did not understand completely. If you could show me a working example which does that, or may be any similar idea, it would be good. anubhava You can actually return something like this also: