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

Is above average number of years spent on PhD considered a red flag in future academia or industry positions?

Does Parliament need to approve the new Brexit delay to 31 October 2019?

What LEGO pieces have "real-world" functionality?

Format single node in tikzcd

How to stretch delimiters to envolve matrices inside of a kbordermatrix?

Working through the single responsibility principle (SRP) in Python when calls are expensive

How did the audience guess the pentatonic scale in Bobby McFerrin's presentation?

Why does this iterative way of solving of equation work?

What is this lever in Argentinian toilets?

Python - Fishing Simulator

How long does the line of fire that you can create as an action using the Investiture of Flame spell last?

The variadic template constructor of my class cannot modify my class members, why is that so?

Why use ultrasound for medical imaging?

how can a perfect fourth interval be considered either consonant or dissonant?

Make it rain characters

How are presidential pardons supposed to be used?

How to colour the US map with Yellow, Green, Red and Blue to minimize the number of states with the colour of Green

rotate text in posterbox

Does Parliament hold absolute power in the UK?

Wolves and sheep

does high air pressure throw off wheel balance?

Didn't get enough time to take a Coding Test - what to do now?

Can withdrawing asylum be illegal?

How should I replace vector<uint8_t>::const_iterator in an API?



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;








5












$begingroup$


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;










share|improve this question











$endgroup$


















    5












    $begingroup$


    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;










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$














      5












      5








      5





      $begingroup$


      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;










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      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






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago









      200_success

      131k17157422




      131k17157422










      asked 4 hours ago









      DeBos99DeBos99

      1267




      1267




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          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;






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













            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
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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









            2












            $begingroup$

            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;






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$

















              2












              $begingroup$

              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;






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$















                2












                2








                2





                $begingroup$

                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;






                share|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                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;







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited 1 hour ago

























                answered 1 hour ago









                Roland IlligRoland Illig

                11.5k11946




                11.5k11946



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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





















































                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                    Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                    Tom Holland Mục lục Đầu đời và giáo dục | Sự nghiệp | Cuộc sống cá nhân | Phim tham gia | Giải thưởng và đề cử | Chú thích | Liên kết ngoài | Trình đơn chuyển hướngProfile“Person Details for Thomas Stanley Holland, "England and Wales Birth Registration Index, 1837-2008" — FamilySearch.org”"Meet Tom Holland... the 16-year-old star of The Impossible""Schoolboy actor Tom Holland finds himself in Oscar contention for role in tsunami drama"“Naomi Watts on the Prince William and Harry's reaction to her film about the late Princess Diana”lưu trữ"Holland and Pflueger Are West End's Two New 'Billy Elliots'""I'm so envious of my son, the movie star! British writer Dominic Holland's spent 20 years trying to crack Hollywood - but he's been beaten to it by a very unlikely rival"“Richard and Margaret Povey of Jersey, Channel Islands, UK: Information about Thomas Stanley Holland”"Tom Holland to play Billy Elliot""New Billy Elliot leaving the garage"Billy Elliot the Musical - Tom Holland - Billy"A Tale of four Billys: Tom Holland""The Feel Good Factor""Thames Christian College schoolboys join Myleene Klass for The Feelgood Factor""Government launches £600,000 arts bursaries pilot""BILLY's Chapman, Holland, Gardner & Jackson-Keen Visit Prime Minister""Elton John 'blown away' by Billy Elliot fifth birthday" (video with John's interview and fragments of Holland's performance)"First News interviews Arrietty's Tom Holland"“33rd Critics' Circle Film Awards winners”“National Board of Review Current Awards”Bản gốc"Ron Howard Whaling Tale 'In The Heart Of The Sea' Casts Tom Holland"“'Spider-Man' Finds Tom Holland to Star as New Web-Slinger”lưu trữ“Captain America: Civil War (2016)”“Film Review: ‘Captain America: Civil War’”lưu trữ“‘Captain America: Civil War’ review: Choose your own avenger”lưu trữ“The Lost City of Z reviews”“Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios Find Their 'Spider-Man' Star and Director”“‘Mary Magdalene’, ‘Current War’ & ‘Wind River’ Get 2017 Release Dates From Weinstein”“Lionsgate Unleashing Daisy Ridley & Tom Holland Starrer ‘Chaos Walking’ In Cannes”“PTA's 'Master' Leads Chicago Film Critics Nominations, UPDATED: Houston and Indiana Critics Nominations”“Nominaciones Goya 2013 Telecinco Cinema – ENG”“Jameson Empire Film Awards: Martin Freeman wins best actor for performance in The Hobbit”“34th Annual Young Artist Awards”Bản gốc“Teen Choice Awards 2016—Captain America: Civil War Leads Second Wave of Nominations”“BAFTA Film Award Nominations: ‘La La Land’ Leads Race”“Saturn Awards Nominations 2017: 'Rogue One,' 'Walking Dead' Lead”Tom HollandTom HollandTom HollandTom Hollandmedia.gettyimages.comWorldCat Identities300279794no20130442900000 0004 0355 42791085670554170004732cb16706349t(data)XX5557367