Program that generates brainfuck code that outputs given text The 2019 Stack Overflow...
Are my PIs rude or am I just being too sensitive?
How does ice melt when immersed in water?
He got a vote 80% that of Emmanuel Macron’s
Python - Fishing Simulator
Is it ethical to upload a automatically generated paper to a non peer-reviewed site as part of a larger research?
How to colour the US map with Yellow, Green, Red and Blue to minimize the number of states with the colour of Green
How is simplicity better than precision and clarity in prose?
Windows 10: How to Lock (not sleep) laptop on lid close?
Working through the single responsibility principle (SRP) in Python when calls are expensive
Make it rain characters
Can smartphones with the same camera sensor have different image quality?
Why can't wing-mounted spoilers be used to steepen approaches?
Can a novice safely splice in wire to lengthen 5V charging cable?
How to politely respond to generic emails requesting a PhD/job in my lab? Without wasting too much time
Single author papers against my advisor's will?
Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?
Didn't get enough time to take a Coding Test - what to do now?
Was credit for the black hole image misattributed?
Is above average number of years spent on PhD considered a red flag in future academia or industry positions?
First use of “packing” as in carrying a gun
How can I define good in a religion that claims no moral authority?
Difference between "generating set" and free product?
Why use ultrasound for medical imaging?
The variadic template constructor of my class cannot modify my class members, why is that so?
Program that generates brainfuck code that outputs given text
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Optimizing string replacement program that uses recursionClassifying lexemes in a given C programInterpreting Brainfuck code to C#, then compiling to a .exeC program that reverses a stringBrainfuck code optimization in PythonC program that recovers lost JPEG filesProgram to find megaPrime numbers between 2 given integersDice roll game that generates random numberProgram that prints out the initials of a given nameText to Brainfuck translator
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
$begingroup$
I created program that generates brainfuck code that outputs given text.
Arguments for the program are input file
with the text and output file
where code will be generated to.
Here is the code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#define ALLOCATION_ERROR 1
#define FILE_ERROR 2
#define OTHER_ERROR 3
static inline FILE*
get_file_pointer(const char* filename,const char* mode){
FILE* file_pointer=fopen(filename,mode);
if(file_pointer==NULL){
fprintf(stderr,"Error: failed to open file %sn",filename);
exit(FILE_ERROR);
}
return file_pointer;
}
static inline char*
int_to_brainfuck(int difference){
if(difference==0)
return ".";
else{
char character_in_loop=difference>0?'+':'-';
difference=difference>0?difference:-difference;
const unsigned int loop_body_length=17;
const unsigned int number_of_ones=(unsigned int)(difference%10);
const unsigned int number_of_tens=(unsigned int)(difference/10);
char* brainfuck_code=calloc(number_of_tens+loop_body_length+number_of_ones+2,sizeof*brainfuck_code);
if(number_of_tens>0){
brainfuck_code[strlen(brainfuck_code)]='>';
memset(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),'+',number_of_tens);
strcat(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),"[<");
memset(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),character_in_loop,10);
strcat(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),">-]<");
}
memset(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),character_in_loop,number_of_ones);
brainfuck_code[strlen(brainfuck_code)]='.';
return brainfuck_code;
}
}
static inline void
generate_code(FILE* input_file,FILE* output_file){
int current_char,last_char=0;
while((current_char=fgetc(input_file))!=EOF){
char* brainfuck_code=int_to_brainfuck(current_char-last_char);
fputs(brainfuck_code,output_file);
if(brainfuck_code[0]!='.')
free(brainfuck_code);
last_char=current_char;
}
}
static inline void
parse_args(int argc){
if(argc!=3){
puts("Usage: bfgen <input> <output>");
exit(OTHER_ERROR);
}
}
int
main(int argc,char** argv){
parse_args(argc);
FILE* input_file=get_file_pointer(argv[1],"r");
FILE* output_file=get_file_pointer(argv[2],"wb");
generate_code(input_file,output_file);
fclose(input_file);
fclose(output_file);
return 0;
}
c brainfuck compiler
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I created program that generates brainfuck code that outputs given text.
Arguments for the program are input file
with the text and output file
where code will be generated to.
Here is the code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#define ALLOCATION_ERROR 1
#define FILE_ERROR 2
#define OTHER_ERROR 3
static inline FILE*
get_file_pointer(const char* filename,const char* mode){
FILE* file_pointer=fopen(filename,mode);
if(file_pointer==NULL){
fprintf(stderr,"Error: failed to open file %sn",filename);
exit(FILE_ERROR);
}
return file_pointer;
}
static inline char*
int_to_brainfuck(int difference){
if(difference==0)
return ".";
else{
char character_in_loop=difference>0?'+':'-';
difference=difference>0?difference:-difference;
const unsigned int loop_body_length=17;
const unsigned int number_of_ones=(unsigned int)(difference%10);
const unsigned int number_of_tens=(unsigned int)(difference/10);
char* brainfuck_code=calloc(number_of_tens+loop_body_length+number_of_ones+2,sizeof*brainfuck_code);
if(number_of_tens>0){
brainfuck_code[strlen(brainfuck_code)]='>';
memset(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),'+',number_of_tens);
strcat(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),"[<");
memset(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),character_in_loop,10);
strcat(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),">-]<");
}
memset(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),character_in_loop,number_of_ones);
brainfuck_code[strlen(brainfuck_code)]='.';
return brainfuck_code;
}
}
static inline void
generate_code(FILE* input_file,FILE* output_file){
int current_char,last_char=0;
while((current_char=fgetc(input_file))!=EOF){
char* brainfuck_code=int_to_brainfuck(current_char-last_char);
fputs(brainfuck_code,output_file);
if(brainfuck_code[0]!='.')
free(brainfuck_code);
last_char=current_char;
}
}
static inline void
parse_args(int argc){
if(argc!=3){
puts("Usage: bfgen <input> <output>");
exit(OTHER_ERROR);
}
}
int
main(int argc,char** argv){
parse_args(argc);
FILE* input_file=get_file_pointer(argv[1],"r");
FILE* output_file=get_file_pointer(argv[2],"wb");
generate_code(input_file,output_file);
fclose(input_file);
fclose(output_file);
return 0;
}
c brainfuck compiler
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I created program that generates brainfuck code that outputs given text.
Arguments for the program are input file
with the text and output file
where code will be generated to.
Here is the code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#define ALLOCATION_ERROR 1
#define FILE_ERROR 2
#define OTHER_ERROR 3
static inline FILE*
get_file_pointer(const char* filename,const char* mode){
FILE* file_pointer=fopen(filename,mode);
if(file_pointer==NULL){
fprintf(stderr,"Error: failed to open file %sn",filename);
exit(FILE_ERROR);
}
return file_pointer;
}
static inline char*
int_to_brainfuck(int difference){
if(difference==0)
return ".";
else{
char character_in_loop=difference>0?'+':'-';
difference=difference>0?difference:-difference;
const unsigned int loop_body_length=17;
const unsigned int number_of_ones=(unsigned int)(difference%10);
const unsigned int number_of_tens=(unsigned int)(difference/10);
char* brainfuck_code=calloc(number_of_tens+loop_body_length+number_of_ones+2,sizeof*brainfuck_code);
if(number_of_tens>0){
brainfuck_code[strlen(brainfuck_code)]='>';
memset(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),'+',number_of_tens);
strcat(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),"[<");
memset(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),character_in_loop,10);
strcat(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),">-]<");
}
memset(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),character_in_loop,number_of_ones);
brainfuck_code[strlen(brainfuck_code)]='.';
return brainfuck_code;
}
}
static inline void
generate_code(FILE* input_file,FILE* output_file){
int current_char,last_char=0;
while((current_char=fgetc(input_file))!=EOF){
char* brainfuck_code=int_to_brainfuck(current_char-last_char);
fputs(brainfuck_code,output_file);
if(brainfuck_code[0]!='.')
free(brainfuck_code);
last_char=current_char;
}
}
static inline void
parse_args(int argc){
if(argc!=3){
puts("Usage: bfgen <input> <output>");
exit(OTHER_ERROR);
}
}
int
main(int argc,char** argv){
parse_args(argc);
FILE* input_file=get_file_pointer(argv[1],"r");
FILE* output_file=get_file_pointer(argv[2],"wb");
generate_code(input_file,output_file);
fclose(input_file);
fclose(output_file);
return 0;
}
c brainfuck compiler
$endgroup$
I created program that generates brainfuck code that outputs given text.
Arguments for the program are input file
with the text and output file
where code will be generated to.
Here is the code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#define ALLOCATION_ERROR 1
#define FILE_ERROR 2
#define OTHER_ERROR 3
static inline FILE*
get_file_pointer(const char* filename,const char* mode){
FILE* file_pointer=fopen(filename,mode);
if(file_pointer==NULL){
fprintf(stderr,"Error: failed to open file %sn",filename);
exit(FILE_ERROR);
}
return file_pointer;
}
static inline char*
int_to_brainfuck(int difference){
if(difference==0)
return ".";
else{
char character_in_loop=difference>0?'+':'-';
difference=difference>0?difference:-difference;
const unsigned int loop_body_length=17;
const unsigned int number_of_ones=(unsigned int)(difference%10);
const unsigned int number_of_tens=(unsigned int)(difference/10);
char* brainfuck_code=calloc(number_of_tens+loop_body_length+number_of_ones+2,sizeof*brainfuck_code);
if(number_of_tens>0){
brainfuck_code[strlen(brainfuck_code)]='>';
memset(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),'+',number_of_tens);
strcat(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),"[<");
memset(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),character_in_loop,10);
strcat(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),">-]<");
}
memset(brainfuck_code+strlen(brainfuck_code),character_in_loop,number_of_ones);
brainfuck_code[strlen(brainfuck_code)]='.';
return brainfuck_code;
}
}
static inline void
generate_code(FILE* input_file,FILE* output_file){
int current_char,last_char=0;
while((current_char=fgetc(input_file))!=EOF){
char* brainfuck_code=int_to_brainfuck(current_char-last_char);
fputs(brainfuck_code,output_file);
if(brainfuck_code[0]!='.')
free(brainfuck_code);
last_char=current_char;
}
}
static inline void
parse_args(int argc){
if(argc!=3){
puts("Usage: bfgen <input> <output>");
exit(OTHER_ERROR);
}
}
int
main(int argc,char** argv){
parse_args(argc);
FILE* input_file=get_file_pointer(argv[1],"r");
FILE* output_file=get_file_pointer(argv[2],"wb");
generate_code(input_file,output_file);
fclose(input_file);
fclose(output_file);
return 0;
}
c brainfuck compiler
c brainfuck compiler
edited 1 hour ago
200_success
131k17157422
131k17157422
asked 4 hours ago
DeBos99DeBos99
1267
1267
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I opened your code in CLion. The first thing it marked was:
#define ALLOCATION_ERROR 1
It's unused.
Other than that, there were no warnings, which is already quite good.
Next I compiled your code using both GCC and CLang:
$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -Os -c bfgen.c
$ clang -Wall -Weverything -Os -c bfgen.c
bfgen.c:5:9: warning: macro is not used [-Wunused-macros]
#define ALLOCATION_ERROR 1
^
1 warning generated.
That's also good. You prepared your code quite well for this code review by fixing the compiler warnings (if there had been any).
Now to the human part of the code review.
I would remove the inline
from the function definitions. Trust the compiler to do the right thing here.
The word get
in the function name get_file_pointer
makes it sound as if this function had no side effects. This assumption is wrong. The function should have a better name. It is typical for these error-checking wrapper functions to be prefixed with x
. You will find many implementations of xmalloc
, xrealloc
, xopen
, and so on in other projects.
In the get_file_pointer
function, you should include the kind of error in the fprintf
output:
fprintf(stderr, "Error: failed to open file '%s': %sn", filename, strerror(errno));
The function int_to_brainfuck
has a bad name. It's clear from the function signature that it takes an int, therefore the function name should rather describe what that int means. It's a difference, but there is no documentation about what differs. After reading the whole code of the function I know that it's the difference between the previous character and the next character. This information should be encoded in the function name.
Calling strlen
repeatedly is a waste of time. At each point in the code you know exactly how long the string is, therefore it is more efficient to just store the current end of the brainfuck_code
in a pointer and always strcpy
to that pointer:
size_t code_len = number_of_tens + loop_body_length + number_of_ones + 2;
char *brainfuck_code = calloc(code_len, sizeof *brainfuck_code);
char *code = brainfuck_code;
if (number_of_tens > 0) {
*code++ = '>';
memset(code, '+', number_of_tens);
code += number_of_tens;
strcpy(code, "[<");
code += 3;
memset(code, character_in_loop, 10);
code += 10;
strcpy(code, ">-]<");
code += 4;
}
memset(code, character_in_loop, number_of_ones);
code += number_of_ones;
*code++ = '.';
assert(brainfuck_code + code_len == code);
return brainfuck_code;
I added the assert
at the end because these explicit length calculations can always go wrong. If the compiler is smart enough, it will find out that this assertion always succeeds and may even eliminate it. And in case you forgot a character to change the code later, you will quickly get a crash dump instead of undefined behavior because of a buffer overflow.
I suspected you had already calculated the length wrong because I couldn't find the first character in the formula. Instead, there's a magic number 2 in that formula. You should make the formula correspond to the actual code by writing it like this:
size_t code_len = 1 + number_of_tens + 3 + 10 + 4 number_of_ones + 1;
This allows you to quickly compare it to the code.
Even better would be if you would not need this whole calculation at all. Since you are writing the output to a file anyway, you don't need to allocate the memory yourself. I'm thinking of two functions like these:
typedef struct {
FILE *out;
} bfgen;
static void bfgen_emit_str(bfgen *gen, const char *code) {
...
}
static void bfgen_emit_repeat(bfgen *gen, char code, size_t n) {
...
}
Then you can simply write:
static void
bfgen_emit_difference(bfgen *gen, int difference) {
if (difference == 0) {
bfgen_emit_str(".");
return;
}
char character_in_loop = difference > 0 ? '+' : '-';
unsigned int abs_diff = difference > 0 ? difference : -difference;
unsigned int number_of_tens = abs_diff / 10;
if (number_of_tens > 0) {
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, '+', number_of_tens);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, "[<");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, 10);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">-]<");
}
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, abs_diff % 10);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ".");
}
This code looks much clearer. Now that you don't have to think about all this annoying buffer size calculation anymore, it becomes much easier to add new optimizations, such as avoiding the loop when number_of_tens
is exactly 1. In the previous version of the code I wouldn't have added this feature out of laziness and fear of breaking things.
Based on this example, you can see that the functions bfgen_emit_str
and bfgen_emit_repeat
are really useful, and implementing them is easy.
static void bfgen_emit_str(bfgen *gen, const char *code) {
fputs(code, gen->out);
}
static void bfgen_emit_repeat(bfgen *gen, char code, size_t n) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
fputc(code, gen->out);
}
}
Looking at bfgen_emit_difference
again, that function doesn't do what its name says. It doesn't only emit code to calculate the difference, it also emits code to print the resulting character. It shouldn't do that. The call to bfgen_emit_str(gen, ".")
belongs in bfgen_generate_code
instead.
It doesn't matter anymore, but your original version of int_to_brainfuck
was essentially:
static char *
int_to_brainfuck(...) {
if (condition) {
return ".";
} else {
return allocated_string;
}
}
You must never write such a function since the caller cannot know whether they should free
the string or not. This leads either to memory leaks or to undefined behavior. You don't want either of these.
In the main
function, you should open the input file in binary mode and the output file in text mode. Currently it's the other way round.
The main takeaway from this code review is that it makes sense to define your own data structures and the corresponding functions. Make these functions as easy as possible to use. Free the caller from any unnecessary tasks such as calculating buffer sizes or managing memory, which are really boring and error-prone.
An idea for further work is to make the generated code more efficient by keeping track of the actual memory contents. This can now be easily done in the struct bfgen
. Then you can look which memory cell has currently the closest value and use that instead of just using a single memory cell.
The rewritten and restructured code is:
#include <errno.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#define FILE_ERROR 2
#define OTHER_ERROR 3
static FILE *
xopen(const char *filename, const char *mode) {
FILE *file_pointer = fopen(filename, mode);
if (file_pointer == NULL) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error: failed to open file '%s': %sn",
filename, strerror(errno));
exit(FILE_ERROR);
}
return file_pointer;
}
typedef struct {
FILE *out;
} bfgen;
static void
bfgen_emit_str(bfgen *gen, const char *code) {
fputs(code, gen->out);
}
static void
bfgen_emit_repeat(bfgen *gen, char code, size_t n) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
fputc(code, gen->out);
}
}
static void
bfgen_emit_difference(bfgen *gen, int difference) {
if (difference == 0) {
return;
}
char character_in_loop = difference > 0 ? '+' : '-';
unsigned int abs_diff = difference > 0 ? difference : -difference;
unsigned int number_of_tens = abs_diff / 10;
if (number_of_tens > 0) {
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, '+', number_of_tens);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, "[<");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, 10);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">-]<");
}
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, abs_diff % 10);
}
static void
bfgen_generate_code(bfgen *gen, FILE *input_file) {
int current_char, last_char = 0;
while ((current_char = fgetc(input_file)) != EOF) {
bfgen_emit_difference(gen, current_char - last_char);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ".n");
last_char = current_char;
}
}
static void
parse_args(int argc) {
if (argc != 3) {
puts("Usage: bfgen <input> <output>");
exit(OTHER_ERROR);
}
}
int
main(int argc, char **argv) {
parse_args(argc);
FILE *input_file = xopen(argv[1], "rb");
FILE *output_file = xopen(argv[2], "w");
bfgen gen = {output_file};
bfgen_generate_code(&gen, input_file);
fclose(output_file);
fclose(input_file);
return 0;
}
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "196"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f217422%2fprogram-that-generates-brainfuck-code-that-outputs-given-text%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I opened your code in CLion. The first thing it marked was:
#define ALLOCATION_ERROR 1
It's unused.
Other than that, there were no warnings, which is already quite good.
Next I compiled your code using both GCC and CLang:
$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -Os -c bfgen.c
$ clang -Wall -Weverything -Os -c bfgen.c
bfgen.c:5:9: warning: macro is not used [-Wunused-macros]
#define ALLOCATION_ERROR 1
^
1 warning generated.
That's also good. You prepared your code quite well for this code review by fixing the compiler warnings (if there had been any).
Now to the human part of the code review.
I would remove the inline
from the function definitions. Trust the compiler to do the right thing here.
The word get
in the function name get_file_pointer
makes it sound as if this function had no side effects. This assumption is wrong. The function should have a better name. It is typical for these error-checking wrapper functions to be prefixed with x
. You will find many implementations of xmalloc
, xrealloc
, xopen
, and so on in other projects.
In the get_file_pointer
function, you should include the kind of error in the fprintf
output:
fprintf(stderr, "Error: failed to open file '%s': %sn", filename, strerror(errno));
The function int_to_brainfuck
has a bad name. It's clear from the function signature that it takes an int, therefore the function name should rather describe what that int means. It's a difference, but there is no documentation about what differs. After reading the whole code of the function I know that it's the difference between the previous character and the next character. This information should be encoded in the function name.
Calling strlen
repeatedly is a waste of time. At each point in the code you know exactly how long the string is, therefore it is more efficient to just store the current end of the brainfuck_code
in a pointer and always strcpy
to that pointer:
size_t code_len = number_of_tens + loop_body_length + number_of_ones + 2;
char *brainfuck_code = calloc(code_len, sizeof *brainfuck_code);
char *code = brainfuck_code;
if (number_of_tens > 0) {
*code++ = '>';
memset(code, '+', number_of_tens);
code += number_of_tens;
strcpy(code, "[<");
code += 3;
memset(code, character_in_loop, 10);
code += 10;
strcpy(code, ">-]<");
code += 4;
}
memset(code, character_in_loop, number_of_ones);
code += number_of_ones;
*code++ = '.';
assert(brainfuck_code + code_len == code);
return brainfuck_code;
I added the assert
at the end because these explicit length calculations can always go wrong. If the compiler is smart enough, it will find out that this assertion always succeeds and may even eliminate it. And in case you forgot a character to change the code later, you will quickly get a crash dump instead of undefined behavior because of a buffer overflow.
I suspected you had already calculated the length wrong because I couldn't find the first character in the formula. Instead, there's a magic number 2 in that formula. You should make the formula correspond to the actual code by writing it like this:
size_t code_len = 1 + number_of_tens + 3 + 10 + 4 number_of_ones + 1;
This allows you to quickly compare it to the code.
Even better would be if you would not need this whole calculation at all. Since you are writing the output to a file anyway, you don't need to allocate the memory yourself. I'm thinking of two functions like these:
typedef struct {
FILE *out;
} bfgen;
static void bfgen_emit_str(bfgen *gen, const char *code) {
...
}
static void bfgen_emit_repeat(bfgen *gen, char code, size_t n) {
...
}
Then you can simply write:
static void
bfgen_emit_difference(bfgen *gen, int difference) {
if (difference == 0) {
bfgen_emit_str(".");
return;
}
char character_in_loop = difference > 0 ? '+' : '-';
unsigned int abs_diff = difference > 0 ? difference : -difference;
unsigned int number_of_tens = abs_diff / 10;
if (number_of_tens > 0) {
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, '+', number_of_tens);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, "[<");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, 10);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">-]<");
}
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, abs_diff % 10);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ".");
}
This code looks much clearer. Now that you don't have to think about all this annoying buffer size calculation anymore, it becomes much easier to add new optimizations, such as avoiding the loop when number_of_tens
is exactly 1. In the previous version of the code I wouldn't have added this feature out of laziness and fear of breaking things.
Based on this example, you can see that the functions bfgen_emit_str
and bfgen_emit_repeat
are really useful, and implementing them is easy.
static void bfgen_emit_str(bfgen *gen, const char *code) {
fputs(code, gen->out);
}
static void bfgen_emit_repeat(bfgen *gen, char code, size_t n) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
fputc(code, gen->out);
}
}
Looking at bfgen_emit_difference
again, that function doesn't do what its name says. It doesn't only emit code to calculate the difference, it also emits code to print the resulting character. It shouldn't do that. The call to bfgen_emit_str(gen, ".")
belongs in bfgen_generate_code
instead.
It doesn't matter anymore, but your original version of int_to_brainfuck
was essentially:
static char *
int_to_brainfuck(...) {
if (condition) {
return ".";
} else {
return allocated_string;
}
}
You must never write such a function since the caller cannot know whether they should free
the string or not. This leads either to memory leaks or to undefined behavior. You don't want either of these.
In the main
function, you should open the input file in binary mode and the output file in text mode. Currently it's the other way round.
The main takeaway from this code review is that it makes sense to define your own data structures and the corresponding functions. Make these functions as easy as possible to use. Free the caller from any unnecessary tasks such as calculating buffer sizes or managing memory, which are really boring and error-prone.
An idea for further work is to make the generated code more efficient by keeping track of the actual memory contents. This can now be easily done in the struct bfgen
. Then you can look which memory cell has currently the closest value and use that instead of just using a single memory cell.
The rewritten and restructured code is:
#include <errno.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#define FILE_ERROR 2
#define OTHER_ERROR 3
static FILE *
xopen(const char *filename, const char *mode) {
FILE *file_pointer = fopen(filename, mode);
if (file_pointer == NULL) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error: failed to open file '%s': %sn",
filename, strerror(errno));
exit(FILE_ERROR);
}
return file_pointer;
}
typedef struct {
FILE *out;
} bfgen;
static void
bfgen_emit_str(bfgen *gen, const char *code) {
fputs(code, gen->out);
}
static void
bfgen_emit_repeat(bfgen *gen, char code, size_t n) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
fputc(code, gen->out);
}
}
static void
bfgen_emit_difference(bfgen *gen, int difference) {
if (difference == 0) {
return;
}
char character_in_loop = difference > 0 ? '+' : '-';
unsigned int abs_diff = difference > 0 ? difference : -difference;
unsigned int number_of_tens = abs_diff / 10;
if (number_of_tens > 0) {
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, '+', number_of_tens);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, "[<");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, 10);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">-]<");
}
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, abs_diff % 10);
}
static void
bfgen_generate_code(bfgen *gen, FILE *input_file) {
int current_char, last_char = 0;
while ((current_char = fgetc(input_file)) != EOF) {
bfgen_emit_difference(gen, current_char - last_char);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ".n");
last_char = current_char;
}
}
static void
parse_args(int argc) {
if (argc != 3) {
puts("Usage: bfgen <input> <output>");
exit(OTHER_ERROR);
}
}
int
main(int argc, char **argv) {
parse_args(argc);
FILE *input_file = xopen(argv[1], "rb");
FILE *output_file = xopen(argv[2], "w");
bfgen gen = {output_file};
bfgen_generate_code(&gen, input_file);
fclose(output_file);
fclose(input_file);
return 0;
}
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I opened your code in CLion. The first thing it marked was:
#define ALLOCATION_ERROR 1
It's unused.
Other than that, there were no warnings, which is already quite good.
Next I compiled your code using both GCC and CLang:
$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -Os -c bfgen.c
$ clang -Wall -Weverything -Os -c bfgen.c
bfgen.c:5:9: warning: macro is not used [-Wunused-macros]
#define ALLOCATION_ERROR 1
^
1 warning generated.
That's also good. You prepared your code quite well for this code review by fixing the compiler warnings (if there had been any).
Now to the human part of the code review.
I would remove the inline
from the function definitions. Trust the compiler to do the right thing here.
The word get
in the function name get_file_pointer
makes it sound as if this function had no side effects. This assumption is wrong. The function should have a better name. It is typical for these error-checking wrapper functions to be prefixed with x
. You will find many implementations of xmalloc
, xrealloc
, xopen
, and so on in other projects.
In the get_file_pointer
function, you should include the kind of error in the fprintf
output:
fprintf(stderr, "Error: failed to open file '%s': %sn", filename, strerror(errno));
The function int_to_brainfuck
has a bad name. It's clear from the function signature that it takes an int, therefore the function name should rather describe what that int means. It's a difference, but there is no documentation about what differs. After reading the whole code of the function I know that it's the difference between the previous character and the next character. This information should be encoded in the function name.
Calling strlen
repeatedly is a waste of time. At each point in the code you know exactly how long the string is, therefore it is more efficient to just store the current end of the brainfuck_code
in a pointer and always strcpy
to that pointer:
size_t code_len = number_of_tens + loop_body_length + number_of_ones + 2;
char *brainfuck_code = calloc(code_len, sizeof *brainfuck_code);
char *code = brainfuck_code;
if (number_of_tens > 0) {
*code++ = '>';
memset(code, '+', number_of_tens);
code += number_of_tens;
strcpy(code, "[<");
code += 3;
memset(code, character_in_loop, 10);
code += 10;
strcpy(code, ">-]<");
code += 4;
}
memset(code, character_in_loop, number_of_ones);
code += number_of_ones;
*code++ = '.';
assert(brainfuck_code + code_len == code);
return brainfuck_code;
I added the assert
at the end because these explicit length calculations can always go wrong. If the compiler is smart enough, it will find out that this assertion always succeeds and may even eliminate it. And in case you forgot a character to change the code later, you will quickly get a crash dump instead of undefined behavior because of a buffer overflow.
I suspected you had already calculated the length wrong because I couldn't find the first character in the formula. Instead, there's a magic number 2 in that formula. You should make the formula correspond to the actual code by writing it like this:
size_t code_len = 1 + number_of_tens + 3 + 10 + 4 number_of_ones + 1;
This allows you to quickly compare it to the code.
Even better would be if you would not need this whole calculation at all. Since you are writing the output to a file anyway, you don't need to allocate the memory yourself. I'm thinking of two functions like these:
typedef struct {
FILE *out;
} bfgen;
static void bfgen_emit_str(bfgen *gen, const char *code) {
...
}
static void bfgen_emit_repeat(bfgen *gen, char code, size_t n) {
...
}
Then you can simply write:
static void
bfgen_emit_difference(bfgen *gen, int difference) {
if (difference == 0) {
bfgen_emit_str(".");
return;
}
char character_in_loop = difference > 0 ? '+' : '-';
unsigned int abs_diff = difference > 0 ? difference : -difference;
unsigned int number_of_tens = abs_diff / 10;
if (number_of_tens > 0) {
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, '+', number_of_tens);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, "[<");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, 10);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">-]<");
}
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, abs_diff % 10);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ".");
}
This code looks much clearer. Now that you don't have to think about all this annoying buffer size calculation anymore, it becomes much easier to add new optimizations, such as avoiding the loop when number_of_tens
is exactly 1. In the previous version of the code I wouldn't have added this feature out of laziness and fear of breaking things.
Based on this example, you can see that the functions bfgen_emit_str
and bfgen_emit_repeat
are really useful, and implementing them is easy.
static void bfgen_emit_str(bfgen *gen, const char *code) {
fputs(code, gen->out);
}
static void bfgen_emit_repeat(bfgen *gen, char code, size_t n) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
fputc(code, gen->out);
}
}
Looking at bfgen_emit_difference
again, that function doesn't do what its name says. It doesn't only emit code to calculate the difference, it also emits code to print the resulting character. It shouldn't do that. The call to bfgen_emit_str(gen, ".")
belongs in bfgen_generate_code
instead.
It doesn't matter anymore, but your original version of int_to_brainfuck
was essentially:
static char *
int_to_brainfuck(...) {
if (condition) {
return ".";
} else {
return allocated_string;
}
}
You must never write such a function since the caller cannot know whether they should free
the string or not. This leads either to memory leaks or to undefined behavior. You don't want either of these.
In the main
function, you should open the input file in binary mode and the output file in text mode. Currently it's the other way round.
The main takeaway from this code review is that it makes sense to define your own data structures and the corresponding functions. Make these functions as easy as possible to use. Free the caller from any unnecessary tasks such as calculating buffer sizes or managing memory, which are really boring and error-prone.
An idea for further work is to make the generated code more efficient by keeping track of the actual memory contents. This can now be easily done in the struct bfgen
. Then you can look which memory cell has currently the closest value and use that instead of just using a single memory cell.
The rewritten and restructured code is:
#include <errno.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#define FILE_ERROR 2
#define OTHER_ERROR 3
static FILE *
xopen(const char *filename, const char *mode) {
FILE *file_pointer = fopen(filename, mode);
if (file_pointer == NULL) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error: failed to open file '%s': %sn",
filename, strerror(errno));
exit(FILE_ERROR);
}
return file_pointer;
}
typedef struct {
FILE *out;
} bfgen;
static void
bfgen_emit_str(bfgen *gen, const char *code) {
fputs(code, gen->out);
}
static void
bfgen_emit_repeat(bfgen *gen, char code, size_t n) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
fputc(code, gen->out);
}
}
static void
bfgen_emit_difference(bfgen *gen, int difference) {
if (difference == 0) {
return;
}
char character_in_loop = difference > 0 ? '+' : '-';
unsigned int abs_diff = difference > 0 ? difference : -difference;
unsigned int number_of_tens = abs_diff / 10;
if (number_of_tens > 0) {
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, '+', number_of_tens);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, "[<");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, 10);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">-]<");
}
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, abs_diff % 10);
}
static void
bfgen_generate_code(bfgen *gen, FILE *input_file) {
int current_char, last_char = 0;
while ((current_char = fgetc(input_file)) != EOF) {
bfgen_emit_difference(gen, current_char - last_char);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ".n");
last_char = current_char;
}
}
static void
parse_args(int argc) {
if (argc != 3) {
puts("Usage: bfgen <input> <output>");
exit(OTHER_ERROR);
}
}
int
main(int argc, char **argv) {
parse_args(argc);
FILE *input_file = xopen(argv[1], "rb");
FILE *output_file = xopen(argv[2], "w");
bfgen gen = {output_file};
bfgen_generate_code(&gen, input_file);
fclose(output_file);
fclose(input_file);
return 0;
}
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I opened your code in CLion. The first thing it marked was:
#define ALLOCATION_ERROR 1
It's unused.
Other than that, there were no warnings, which is already quite good.
Next I compiled your code using both GCC and CLang:
$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -Os -c bfgen.c
$ clang -Wall -Weverything -Os -c bfgen.c
bfgen.c:5:9: warning: macro is not used [-Wunused-macros]
#define ALLOCATION_ERROR 1
^
1 warning generated.
That's also good. You prepared your code quite well for this code review by fixing the compiler warnings (if there had been any).
Now to the human part of the code review.
I would remove the inline
from the function definitions. Trust the compiler to do the right thing here.
The word get
in the function name get_file_pointer
makes it sound as if this function had no side effects. This assumption is wrong. The function should have a better name. It is typical for these error-checking wrapper functions to be prefixed with x
. You will find many implementations of xmalloc
, xrealloc
, xopen
, and so on in other projects.
In the get_file_pointer
function, you should include the kind of error in the fprintf
output:
fprintf(stderr, "Error: failed to open file '%s': %sn", filename, strerror(errno));
The function int_to_brainfuck
has a bad name. It's clear from the function signature that it takes an int, therefore the function name should rather describe what that int means. It's a difference, but there is no documentation about what differs. After reading the whole code of the function I know that it's the difference between the previous character and the next character. This information should be encoded in the function name.
Calling strlen
repeatedly is a waste of time. At each point in the code you know exactly how long the string is, therefore it is more efficient to just store the current end of the brainfuck_code
in a pointer and always strcpy
to that pointer:
size_t code_len = number_of_tens + loop_body_length + number_of_ones + 2;
char *brainfuck_code = calloc(code_len, sizeof *brainfuck_code);
char *code = brainfuck_code;
if (number_of_tens > 0) {
*code++ = '>';
memset(code, '+', number_of_tens);
code += number_of_tens;
strcpy(code, "[<");
code += 3;
memset(code, character_in_loop, 10);
code += 10;
strcpy(code, ">-]<");
code += 4;
}
memset(code, character_in_loop, number_of_ones);
code += number_of_ones;
*code++ = '.';
assert(brainfuck_code + code_len == code);
return brainfuck_code;
I added the assert
at the end because these explicit length calculations can always go wrong. If the compiler is smart enough, it will find out that this assertion always succeeds and may even eliminate it. And in case you forgot a character to change the code later, you will quickly get a crash dump instead of undefined behavior because of a buffer overflow.
I suspected you had already calculated the length wrong because I couldn't find the first character in the formula. Instead, there's a magic number 2 in that formula. You should make the formula correspond to the actual code by writing it like this:
size_t code_len = 1 + number_of_tens + 3 + 10 + 4 number_of_ones + 1;
This allows you to quickly compare it to the code.
Even better would be if you would not need this whole calculation at all. Since you are writing the output to a file anyway, you don't need to allocate the memory yourself. I'm thinking of two functions like these:
typedef struct {
FILE *out;
} bfgen;
static void bfgen_emit_str(bfgen *gen, const char *code) {
...
}
static void bfgen_emit_repeat(bfgen *gen, char code, size_t n) {
...
}
Then you can simply write:
static void
bfgen_emit_difference(bfgen *gen, int difference) {
if (difference == 0) {
bfgen_emit_str(".");
return;
}
char character_in_loop = difference > 0 ? '+' : '-';
unsigned int abs_diff = difference > 0 ? difference : -difference;
unsigned int number_of_tens = abs_diff / 10;
if (number_of_tens > 0) {
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, '+', number_of_tens);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, "[<");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, 10);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">-]<");
}
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, abs_diff % 10);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ".");
}
This code looks much clearer. Now that you don't have to think about all this annoying buffer size calculation anymore, it becomes much easier to add new optimizations, such as avoiding the loop when number_of_tens
is exactly 1. In the previous version of the code I wouldn't have added this feature out of laziness and fear of breaking things.
Based on this example, you can see that the functions bfgen_emit_str
and bfgen_emit_repeat
are really useful, and implementing them is easy.
static void bfgen_emit_str(bfgen *gen, const char *code) {
fputs(code, gen->out);
}
static void bfgen_emit_repeat(bfgen *gen, char code, size_t n) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
fputc(code, gen->out);
}
}
Looking at bfgen_emit_difference
again, that function doesn't do what its name says. It doesn't only emit code to calculate the difference, it also emits code to print the resulting character. It shouldn't do that. The call to bfgen_emit_str(gen, ".")
belongs in bfgen_generate_code
instead.
It doesn't matter anymore, but your original version of int_to_brainfuck
was essentially:
static char *
int_to_brainfuck(...) {
if (condition) {
return ".";
} else {
return allocated_string;
}
}
You must never write such a function since the caller cannot know whether they should free
the string or not. This leads either to memory leaks or to undefined behavior. You don't want either of these.
In the main
function, you should open the input file in binary mode and the output file in text mode. Currently it's the other way round.
The main takeaway from this code review is that it makes sense to define your own data structures and the corresponding functions. Make these functions as easy as possible to use. Free the caller from any unnecessary tasks such as calculating buffer sizes or managing memory, which are really boring and error-prone.
An idea for further work is to make the generated code more efficient by keeping track of the actual memory contents. This can now be easily done in the struct bfgen
. Then you can look which memory cell has currently the closest value and use that instead of just using a single memory cell.
The rewritten and restructured code is:
#include <errno.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#define FILE_ERROR 2
#define OTHER_ERROR 3
static FILE *
xopen(const char *filename, const char *mode) {
FILE *file_pointer = fopen(filename, mode);
if (file_pointer == NULL) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error: failed to open file '%s': %sn",
filename, strerror(errno));
exit(FILE_ERROR);
}
return file_pointer;
}
typedef struct {
FILE *out;
} bfgen;
static void
bfgen_emit_str(bfgen *gen, const char *code) {
fputs(code, gen->out);
}
static void
bfgen_emit_repeat(bfgen *gen, char code, size_t n) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
fputc(code, gen->out);
}
}
static void
bfgen_emit_difference(bfgen *gen, int difference) {
if (difference == 0) {
return;
}
char character_in_loop = difference > 0 ? '+' : '-';
unsigned int abs_diff = difference > 0 ? difference : -difference;
unsigned int number_of_tens = abs_diff / 10;
if (number_of_tens > 0) {
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, '+', number_of_tens);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, "[<");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, 10);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">-]<");
}
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, abs_diff % 10);
}
static void
bfgen_generate_code(bfgen *gen, FILE *input_file) {
int current_char, last_char = 0;
while ((current_char = fgetc(input_file)) != EOF) {
bfgen_emit_difference(gen, current_char - last_char);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ".n");
last_char = current_char;
}
}
static void
parse_args(int argc) {
if (argc != 3) {
puts("Usage: bfgen <input> <output>");
exit(OTHER_ERROR);
}
}
int
main(int argc, char **argv) {
parse_args(argc);
FILE *input_file = xopen(argv[1], "rb");
FILE *output_file = xopen(argv[2], "w");
bfgen gen = {output_file};
bfgen_generate_code(&gen, input_file);
fclose(output_file);
fclose(input_file);
return 0;
}
$endgroup$
I opened your code in CLion. The first thing it marked was:
#define ALLOCATION_ERROR 1
It's unused.
Other than that, there were no warnings, which is already quite good.
Next I compiled your code using both GCC and CLang:
$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -Os -c bfgen.c
$ clang -Wall -Weverything -Os -c bfgen.c
bfgen.c:5:9: warning: macro is not used [-Wunused-macros]
#define ALLOCATION_ERROR 1
^
1 warning generated.
That's also good. You prepared your code quite well for this code review by fixing the compiler warnings (if there had been any).
Now to the human part of the code review.
I would remove the inline
from the function definitions. Trust the compiler to do the right thing here.
The word get
in the function name get_file_pointer
makes it sound as if this function had no side effects. This assumption is wrong. The function should have a better name. It is typical for these error-checking wrapper functions to be prefixed with x
. You will find many implementations of xmalloc
, xrealloc
, xopen
, and so on in other projects.
In the get_file_pointer
function, you should include the kind of error in the fprintf
output:
fprintf(stderr, "Error: failed to open file '%s': %sn", filename, strerror(errno));
The function int_to_brainfuck
has a bad name. It's clear from the function signature that it takes an int, therefore the function name should rather describe what that int means. It's a difference, but there is no documentation about what differs. After reading the whole code of the function I know that it's the difference between the previous character and the next character. This information should be encoded in the function name.
Calling strlen
repeatedly is a waste of time. At each point in the code you know exactly how long the string is, therefore it is more efficient to just store the current end of the brainfuck_code
in a pointer and always strcpy
to that pointer:
size_t code_len = number_of_tens + loop_body_length + number_of_ones + 2;
char *brainfuck_code = calloc(code_len, sizeof *brainfuck_code);
char *code = brainfuck_code;
if (number_of_tens > 0) {
*code++ = '>';
memset(code, '+', number_of_tens);
code += number_of_tens;
strcpy(code, "[<");
code += 3;
memset(code, character_in_loop, 10);
code += 10;
strcpy(code, ">-]<");
code += 4;
}
memset(code, character_in_loop, number_of_ones);
code += number_of_ones;
*code++ = '.';
assert(brainfuck_code + code_len == code);
return brainfuck_code;
I added the assert
at the end because these explicit length calculations can always go wrong. If the compiler is smart enough, it will find out that this assertion always succeeds and may even eliminate it. And in case you forgot a character to change the code later, you will quickly get a crash dump instead of undefined behavior because of a buffer overflow.
I suspected you had already calculated the length wrong because I couldn't find the first character in the formula. Instead, there's a magic number 2 in that formula. You should make the formula correspond to the actual code by writing it like this:
size_t code_len = 1 + number_of_tens + 3 + 10 + 4 number_of_ones + 1;
This allows you to quickly compare it to the code.
Even better would be if you would not need this whole calculation at all. Since you are writing the output to a file anyway, you don't need to allocate the memory yourself. I'm thinking of two functions like these:
typedef struct {
FILE *out;
} bfgen;
static void bfgen_emit_str(bfgen *gen, const char *code) {
...
}
static void bfgen_emit_repeat(bfgen *gen, char code, size_t n) {
...
}
Then you can simply write:
static void
bfgen_emit_difference(bfgen *gen, int difference) {
if (difference == 0) {
bfgen_emit_str(".");
return;
}
char character_in_loop = difference > 0 ? '+' : '-';
unsigned int abs_diff = difference > 0 ? difference : -difference;
unsigned int number_of_tens = abs_diff / 10;
if (number_of_tens > 0) {
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, '+', number_of_tens);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, "[<");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, 10);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">-]<");
}
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, abs_diff % 10);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ".");
}
This code looks much clearer. Now that you don't have to think about all this annoying buffer size calculation anymore, it becomes much easier to add new optimizations, such as avoiding the loop when number_of_tens
is exactly 1. In the previous version of the code I wouldn't have added this feature out of laziness and fear of breaking things.
Based on this example, you can see that the functions bfgen_emit_str
and bfgen_emit_repeat
are really useful, and implementing them is easy.
static void bfgen_emit_str(bfgen *gen, const char *code) {
fputs(code, gen->out);
}
static void bfgen_emit_repeat(bfgen *gen, char code, size_t n) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
fputc(code, gen->out);
}
}
Looking at bfgen_emit_difference
again, that function doesn't do what its name says. It doesn't only emit code to calculate the difference, it also emits code to print the resulting character. It shouldn't do that. The call to bfgen_emit_str(gen, ".")
belongs in bfgen_generate_code
instead.
It doesn't matter anymore, but your original version of int_to_brainfuck
was essentially:
static char *
int_to_brainfuck(...) {
if (condition) {
return ".";
} else {
return allocated_string;
}
}
You must never write such a function since the caller cannot know whether they should free
the string or not. This leads either to memory leaks or to undefined behavior. You don't want either of these.
In the main
function, you should open the input file in binary mode and the output file in text mode. Currently it's the other way round.
The main takeaway from this code review is that it makes sense to define your own data structures and the corresponding functions. Make these functions as easy as possible to use. Free the caller from any unnecessary tasks such as calculating buffer sizes or managing memory, which are really boring and error-prone.
An idea for further work is to make the generated code more efficient by keeping track of the actual memory contents. This can now be easily done in the struct bfgen
. Then you can look which memory cell has currently the closest value and use that instead of just using a single memory cell.
The rewritten and restructured code is:
#include <errno.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#define FILE_ERROR 2
#define OTHER_ERROR 3
static FILE *
xopen(const char *filename, const char *mode) {
FILE *file_pointer = fopen(filename, mode);
if (file_pointer == NULL) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error: failed to open file '%s': %sn",
filename, strerror(errno));
exit(FILE_ERROR);
}
return file_pointer;
}
typedef struct {
FILE *out;
} bfgen;
static void
bfgen_emit_str(bfgen *gen, const char *code) {
fputs(code, gen->out);
}
static void
bfgen_emit_repeat(bfgen *gen, char code, size_t n) {
for (size_t i = 0; i < n; i++) {
fputc(code, gen->out);
}
}
static void
bfgen_emit_difference(bfgen *gen, int difference) {
if (difference == 0) {
return;
}
char character_in_loop = difference > 0 ? '+' : '-';
unsigned int abs_diff = difference > 0 ? difference : -difference;
unsigned int number_of_tens = abs_diff / 10;
if (number_of_tens > 0) {
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, '+', number_of_tens);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, "[<");
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, 10);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ">-]<");
}
bfgen_emit_repeat(gen, character_in_loop, abs_diff % 10);
}
static void
bfgen_generate_code(bfgen *gen, FILE *input_file) {
int current_char, last_char = 0;
while ((current_char = fgetc(input_file)) != EOF) {
bfgen_emit_difference(gen, current_char - last_char);
bfgen_emit_str(gen, ".n");
last_char = current_char;
}
}
static void
parse_args(int argc) {
if (argc != 3) {
puts("Usage: bfgen <input> <output>");
exit(OTHER_ERROR);
}
}
int
main(int argc, char **argv) {
parse_args(argc);
FILE *input_file = xopen(argv[1], "rb");
FILE *output_file = xopen(argv[2], "w");
bfgen gen = {output_file};
bfgen_generate_code(&gen, input_file);
fclose(output_file);
fclose(input_file);
return 0;
}
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
Roland IlligRoland Illig
11.5k11946
11.5k11946
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f217422%2fprogram-that-generates-brainfuck-code-that-outputs-given-text%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown