Table of Contents

Corning Community College

CSCS2320 Data Structures

Project: SLL1

Errata

This section will document any updates applied to the project since original release:

Objective

We've commenced on our list explorations, implementing some of the core functionality (adding nodes to a list through insertion) as well as some helper functionality to make our list transactions even more effective (creating, displaying, getting node positions, and setting node positions).

In this project, we continue our list implementation by exploring the appending of nodes to a list, searching for nodes within a list, copying a list, displaying a list in reverse, and comparing two lists for equality.

Project Overview

header file

In inc/ is the list header file: list.h

For this project, we're going to be implementing the following functions: 

List *append(List *, Node *, Node *);   // append new node into list after specified place
Node *searchlist(List *, char);         // is there a node containing value in list?
List *cplist(List *);                   // duplicate existing list
void  displayb(List *, int);            // display list backwards
uc    compare(List *, List *, ulli *);  // compare two lists for equality

Additionally, the following content has been added, largely to aid with compare() implementation and operation: 

typedef struct list            List;    // because we deserve nice things
typedef unsigned long long int ulli;    // short name for biggest space
typedef unsigned char          uc;      // shorter name for smallest space

and: 

// return status codes
//
#define CMP_EQUALITY       0x00
#define CMP_L1_NULL        0x01
#define CMP_L1_EMPTY       0x02
#define CMP_L1_UNDEFINED   0x03
#define CMP_L1_GREATER     0x04
#define CMP_L1_LESS        0x08
#define CMP_L2_NULL        0x10
#define CMP_L2_EMPTY       0x20
#define CMP_L2_UNDEFINED   0x30
#define CMP_L2_GREATER     0x40
#define CMP_L2_LESS        0x80

As a suggestion, I'd recommend implementing them in the order listed above, starting with append() and then searchlist(). By doing this, you get to review a bit from the previous weeks before you continue with base functionality, which will help you in your implementation of the other functions.

An important perspective to keep when implementing these list functions is to be mindful of what functionality can be a unit of something else. Do not reinvent the wheel- utilize functions you've written- it will shorten your code, and reduce the chance of error. Plus, that IS the intent.. to have each function be specific and focused on its particular task; to do one thing, and do that one thing extremely well. We can then use them as base units to build more sophisticated functionality.

In this project, append() can be considered that basic operation, where cplist() can be built using append() (along with any other list/node functions from this and previous projects).

list library

In src/list/, you will find 5 new C files:

Take a look at the code there. These are the files that contain functions which will be compiled and archived into the list library (liblist.a) we will be using in this and future projects.

Figure out what is going on, make sure you understand it.

NOTE: None of these files denote an entire runnable program. These are merely standalone functions. The various programs under the unit/ and app/ directories will use these functions in addition to their application logic to create complete executable programs.

You will also notice there are function prototypes for these list library functions in the list.h header file, located in the inc/ subdirectory, which you'll notice all the related programs you'll be playing with in this project are #includeing.

List library unit tests

In unit/list/, you will find these new files:

These are complete runnable programs (when compiled, and linked against the list library, which is all handled for you by the Makefile system in place).

Of particular importance, I want you to take a close look at:

Reference Implementation

As the layers and complexities rise, narrowing down the source of errors becomes increasingly important.

If unit-insert isn't working, is it because of a problem there, in your insert() function, or in one of the node functions it calls, such as mknode()?

To aid you in your development efforts, you now have the ability to import a working implementation of previous project functions into your current project for the purposes of testing/debugging purposes.

Using the test reference implementation

You'll notice that, upon running make help in the base-level Makefile, the following new options appear (about halfway in the middle): 

**                                                                    **
** make use-test-reference  - use working implementation object files **
** make use-your-own-code   - use your node implementation code       **
**                                                                    **

In order to make use of it, you'll need to run make use-test-reference from the base of your sll0 project directory, as follows: 

lab46:~/src/SEMESTER/DESIG/sll1$ make use-test-reference
...
NODE reference implementation in place, run 'make' to build everything.
lab46:~/src/SEMESTER/DESIG/sll1$

You'll see that final message indicating everything is in place (it automatically runs a make clean for you), and then you can go ahead and build everything with it: 

lab46:~/src/SEMESTER/DESIG/sll1$ make
...

Debugging: When using the test reference implementation, you will not be able to debug the contents of the test reference implementation functions (the files provided do not have debugging symbols added), so you'll need to take care not to step into these functions (it would be just like stepping into printf(). You can still compile the project with debugging support and debug (as usual) those compiled functions (ie the stack functions).

Reverting back to using your code

If you were trying out the reference implementation to verify queue functionality, and wanted to revert back to your own code, it is as simple as: 

lab46:~/src/SEMESTER/DESIG/sll1$ make use-your-own-code
Local node implementation restored, run 'make clean; make' to build everything.
lab46:~/src/SEMESTER/DESIG/sll1$

Just to be clear: the reference implementation is not some magic shortcut getting you out of doing this project; it merely gives you a glimpse into how things are working, or should be working, provided your node library is complete and fully functional.

Expected Results

To assist you in verifying a correct implementation, a fully working implementation of the node library and list library (up to this point) should resemble the following:

list library

Here is what you should get for the functions completed for sll1: 

lab46:~/src/SEMESTER/DESIG/sll1$ make check
======================================================
=    Verifying Singly-Linked  List Functionality     =
======================================================
    [append] Total:  11, Matches:  11, Mismatches:   0
[searchlist] Total:  11, Matches:  11, Mismatches:   0
    [cplist] Total:  11, Matches:  11, Mismatches:   0
  [displayb] Total:  10, Matches:  10, Mismatches:   0
   [compare] Total:  15, Matches:  15, Mismatches:   0
======================================================
   [RESULTS] Total:  58, Matches:  58, Mismatches:   0
======================================================
lab46:~/src/SEMESTER/DESIG/sll1$

Submission

Project Submission

When you are done with the project and are ready to submit it, you simply run make submit: 

lab46:~/src/SEMESTER/DESIG/PROJECT$ make submit
...

Submission Criteria

To be successful in this project, the following criteria must be met:

  • Project must be submit on time, by the posted deadline.
    • Early submissions will earn 1 bonus point per full day in advance of the deadline.
      • Bonus eligibility requires an honest attempt at performing the project (no blank efforts accepted)
    • Late submissions will lose 33% credit per day, with the submission window closing on the 3rd day following the deadline.
      • To clarify: if a project is due on Wednesday (before its end), it would then be 33% off on Thursday, 66% off on Friday, and worth 0% once it becomes Saturday.
      • Certain projects may not have a late grace period, and the due date is the absolute end of things.
  • all requested functions must be implemented in the related library
  • all requested functionality must conform to stated requirements (either on this project page or in comment banner in source code files themselves).
  • Output generated must conform to any provided requirements and specifications (be it in writing or sample output)
    • output obviously must also be correct based on input.
  • Processing must be correct based on input given and output requested
  • Project header files are NOT to be altered. During evaluation the stock header files will be copied in, which could lead to compile-time problems.
  • Code must compile cleanly.
    • Each source file must compile cleanly (worth 3 total points):
      • 3/3: no compiler warnings, notes or errors.
      • 2/3: one of warning or note present during compile
      • 1/3: two of warning or note present during compile
      • 0/3: compiler errors present (code doesn't compile)
  • Code must be nicely and consistently indented (you may use the indent tool)
    • You are free to use your own coding style, but you must be consistent
    • Avoid unnecessary blank lines (some are good for readability, but do not go overboard- double-spacing your code will get points deducted).
    • Indentation will be rated on the following scale (worth 3 total points):
      • 3/3: Aesthetically pleasing, pristine indentation, easy to read, organized
      • 2/3: Mostly consistent indentation, but some distractions (superfluous or lacking blank lines, or some sort of “busy” ness to the code)
      • 1/3: Some indentation issues, difficult to read
      • 0/3: Lack of consistent indentation (didn't appear to try)
  • Unless fundamentally required, none of your code should perform any inventory or manual counting. Basing your algorithms off such fixed numbers complicates things, and is demonstrative of a more controlling nature.
  • Code must be commented
    • Any “to be implemented” comments MUST be removed
      • these “to be implemented” comments, if still present at evaluation time, will result in points being deducted.
    • Commenting will be rated on the following scale (worth 3 total points):
      • 3/3: Aesthetically pleasing (comments aligned or generally not distracting), easy to read, organized
      • 2/3: Mostly consistent, some distractions or gaps in comments (not explaining important things)
      • 1/3: Light commenting effort, not much time or energy appears to have been put in.
      • 0/3: No original comments
      • should I deserve nice things, my terminal is usually 90 characters wide. So if you'd like to format your code not to exceed 90 character wide terminals (and avoid line wrapping comments), at least as reasonably as possible, those are two sure-fire ways of making a good impression on me with respect to code presentation and comments.
    • Sufficient comments explaining the point of provided logic MUST be present
  • Code must be appropriately modified
    • Appropriate modifications will be rated on the following scale (worth 3 total points):
      • 3/3: Complete attention to detail, original-looking implementation- also is not unnecessarily reinventing existing functionality
      • 2/3: Lacking some details (like variable initializations), but otherwise complete (still conforms, or conforms mostly to specifications), and reinvents some wheels
      • 1/3: Incomplete implementation (typically lacking some obvious details/does not conform to specifications)
      • 0/3: Incomplete implementation to the point of non-functionality (or was not started at all)
    • Implementation must be accurate with respect to the spirit/purpose of the project (if the focus is on exploring a certain algorithm to produce results, but you avoid the algorithm yet still produce the same results– that's what I'm talking about here).. worth 3 total points:
      • 3/3: Implementation is in line with spirit of project
      • 2/3: Some avoidance/shortcuts taken (note this does not mean optimization– you can optimize all you want, so long as it doesn't violate the spirit of the project).
      • 1/3: Generally avoiding the spirit of the project (new, different things, resorting to old and familiar, despite it being against the directions)
      • 0/3: entirely avoiding.
    • Error checking must be adequately and appropriately performed, according to the following scale (worth 3 total points):
      • 3/3: Full and proper error checking performed for all reasonable cases, including queries for external resources and data.
      • 2/3: Enough error checking performed to pass basic project requirements and work for most operational cases.
      • 1/3: Minimal error checking, code is fragile (code may not work in full accordance with project requirements)
      • 0/3: No error checking (code likely does not work in accordance with project requirements)
  • Any and all non-void functions written must have, at most, 1 return statement
    • points will be lost for solutions containing multiple return statements in a function.
  • Absolutely, positively NO (as in ZERO) use of goto statements.
    • points will most definitely be lest for solutions employing such things.
  • Track/version the source code in a repository
  • Filling out any submit-time questionnaires
  • Submit a copy of your source code to me using the submit tool (make submit will do this) by the deadline.