Integers to English words in C

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
8
down vote

favorite
2












As a beginner in C programming, I decided to write a function words that, given an unsigned integer n, puts the English representation in words of n into the character array dest.



This code is quite difficult to follow due to its complexity. If I hadn't written this code, it would take me a good while to understand it fully. What can I do to improve readability and reduce the unnecessary complexity?



#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>

const char *digits = "one ", "two ", "three ", "four ", "five ", "six ", "seven ", "eight ", "nine " ;
const char *tens = "ten ", "twenty ", "thirty ", "forty ", "fifty ", "sixty ", "seventy ", "eighty ", "ninety " ;
const char *teens = "eleven ", "twelve ", "thirteen ", "fourteen ", "fifteen ", "sixteen ", "seventeen ", "eighteen ", "nineteen " ;
const char *hundreds = "thousand ", "million ", "billion " ;

char *strprep(const char *prefix, char *dest)

char *temp = strdup(dest);
sprintf(dest, "%s%s", prefix, temp);
free(temp);
return dest;


void words(unsigned int n, char *dest)

unsigned int l, r, m, d = 0, t = 0;
char d_cpy[16];

while(n)

r = n % 10;
n = (n - r) / 10;
m = d % 3;

if(d && !m)
n % 100)

strprep(hundreds[t], dest);


t++;


if(r)

switch(m)

case 0:
if(n % 10 != 1)

strprep(digits[r - 1], dest);

break;
case 1:
if(l && r == 1)

strprep(teens[l - 1], dest);

else

strprep(tens[r - 1], dest);

break;
case 2:
strcpy(d_cpy, digits[r - 1]);
strprep(strcat(d_cpy, "hundred "), dest);



l = r;
d++;


if(!strlen(dest))

strcpy(dest, "zero");




To provide some context, words() is called in main() (defined in the same file):



#include <limits.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv)
!(*argv[1])









share|improve this question



















  • 1




    Posting examples usages of words(), or at least a description of how to use it would be helpful and allow even better answers.
    – chux
    Aug 20 at 2:51






  • 1




    This is a small thing but putting the opening braces on the previous line rather than on its own line would vastly* increase the readability of this particular piece of code (for one thing, the whole words function would now comfortably fit onto a single screen, rather than requiring scrolling).
    – Konrad Rudolph
    Aug 20 at 9:57







  • 2




    @KonradRudolph that's really a style preference. I personally find it vastly more legible when opening braces are on their own line rather than trailing the previous line.
    – jcaron
    Aug 20 at 14:01










  • @jcaron I don’t buy it, sorry. Try it for OP’s code: it’s so obviously more readable, there’s nothing I can add. Everybody always harps on about not exceeding horizontal space but vertical space also affects readability, and there are in fact multiple studies to back this up (Code Complete references some research).
    – Konrad Rudolph
    Aug 20 at 14:05







  • 1




    @KonradRudolph : Could we take discussion of indentation style to "Should curly braces appear on their own line?" ?
    – David Cary
    Aug 20 at 19:17














up vote
8
down vote

favorite
2












As a beginner in C programming, I decided to write a function words that, given an unsigned integer n, puts the English representation in words of n into the character array dest.



This code is quite difficult to follow due to its complexity. If I hadn't written this code, it would take me a good while to understand it fully. What can I do to improve readability and reduce the unnecessary complexity?



#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>

const char *digits = "one ", "two ", "three ", "four ", "five ", "six ", "seven ", "eight ", "nine " ;
const char *tens = "ten ", "twenty ", "thirty ", "forty ", "fifty ", "sixty ", "seventy ", "eighty ", "ninety " ;
const char *teens = "eleven ", "twelve ", "thirteen ", "fourteen ", "fifteen ", "sixteen ", "seventeen ", "eighteen ", "nineteen " ;
const char *hundreds = "thousand ", "million ", "billion " ;

char *strprep(const char *prefix, char *dest)

char *temp = strdup(dest);
sprintf(dest, "%s%s", prefix, temp);
free(temp);
return dest;


void words(unsigned int n, char *dest)

unsigned int l, r, m, d = 0, t = 0;
char d_cpy[16];

while(n)

r = n % 10;
n = (n - r) / 10;
m = d % 3;

if(d && !m)
n % 100)

strprep(hundreds[t], dest);


t++;


if(r)

switch(m)

case 0:
if(n % 10 != 1)

strprep(digits[r - 1], dest);

break;
case 1:
if(l && r == 1)

strprep(teens[l - 1], dest);

else

strprep(tens[r - 1], dest);

break;
case 2:
strcpy(d_cpy, digits[r - 1]);
strprep(strcat(d_cpy, "hundred "), dest);



l = r;
d++;


if(!strlen(dest))

strcpy(dest, "zero");




To provide some context, words() is called in main() (defined in the same file):



#include <limits.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv)
!(*argv[1])









share|improve this question



















  • 1




    Posting examples usages of words(), or at least a description of how to use it would be helpful and allow even better answers.
    – chux
    Aug 20 at 2:51






  • 1




    This is a small thing but putting the opening braces on the previous line rather than on its own line would vastly* increase the readability of this particular piece of code (for one thing, the whole words function would now comfortably fit onto a single screen, rather than requiring scrolling).
    – Konrad Rudolph
    Aug 20 at 9:57







  • 2




    @KonradRudolph that's really a style preference. I personally find it vastly more legible when opening braces are on their own line rather than trailing the previous line.
    – jcaron
    Aug 20 at 14:01










  • @jcaron I don’t buy it, sorry. Try it for OP’s code: it’s so obviously more readable, there’s nothing I can add. Everybody always harps on about not exceeding horizontal space but vertical space also affects readability, and there are in fact multiple studies to back this up (Code Complete references some research).
    – Konrad Rudolph
    Aug 20 at 14:05







  • 1




    @KonradRudolph : Could we take discussion of indentation style to "Should curly braces appear on their own line?" ?
    – David Cary
    Aug 20 at 19:17












up vote
8
down vote

favorite
2









up vote
8
down vote

favorite
2






2





As a beginner in C programming, I decided to write a function words that, given an unsigned integer n, puts the English representation in words of n into the character array dest.



This code is quite difficult to follow due to its complexity. If I hadn't written this code, it would take me a good while to understand it fully. What can I do to improve readability and reduce the unnecessary complexity?



#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>

const char *digits = "one ", "two ", "three ", "four ", "five ", "six ", "seven ", "eight ", "nine " ;
const char *tens = "ten ", "twenty ", "thirty ", "forty ", "fifty ", "sixty ", "seventy ", "eighty ", "ninety " ;
const char *teens = "eleven ", "twelve ", "thirteen ", "fourteen ", "fifteen ", "sixteen ", "seventeen ", "eighteen ", "nineteen " ;
const char *hundreds = "thousand ", "million ", "billion " ;

char *strprep(const char *prefix, char *dest)

char *temp = strdup(dest);
sprintf(dest, "%s%s", prefix, temp);
free(temp);
return dest;


void words(unsigned int n, char *dest)

unsigned int l, r, m, d = 0, t = 0;
char d_cpy[16];

while(n)

r = n % 10;
n = (n - r) / 10;
m = d % 3;

if(d && !m)
n % 100)

strprep(hundreds[t], dest);


t++;


if(r)

switch(m)

case 0:
if(n % 10 != 1)

strprep(digits[r - 1], dest);

break;
case 1:
if(l && r == 1)

strprep(teens[l - 1], dest);

else

strprep(tens[r - 1], dest);

break;
case 2:
strcpy(d_cpy, digits[r - 1]);
strprep(strcat(d_cpy, "hundred "), dest);



l = r;
d++;


if(!strlen(dest))

strcpy(dest, "zero");




To provide some context, words() is called in main() (defined in the same file):



#include <limits.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv)
!(*argv[1])









share|improve this question















As a beginner in C programming, I decided to write a function words that, given an unsigned integer n, puts the English representation in words of n into the character array dest.



This code is quite difficult to follow due to its complexity. If I hadn't written this code, it would take me a good while to understand it fully. What can I do to improve readability and reduce the unnecessary complexity?



#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>

const char *digits = "one ", "two ", "three ", "four ", "five ", "six ", "seven ", "eight ", "nine " ;
const char *tens = "ten ", "twenty ", "thirty ", "forty ", "fifty ", "sixty ", "seventy ", "eighty ", "ninety " ;
const char *teens = "eleven ", "twelve ", "thirteen ", "fourteen ", "fifteen ", "sixteen ", "seventeen ", "eighteen ", "nineteen " ;
const char *hundreds = "thousand ", "million ", "billion " ;

char *strprep(const char *prefix, char *dest)

char *temp = strdup(dest);
sprintf(dest, "%s%s", prefix, temp);
free(temp);
return dest;


void words(unsigned int n, char *dest)

unsigned int l, r, m, d = 0, t = 0;
char d_cpy[16];

while(n)

r = n % 10;
n = (n - r) / 10;
m = d % 3;

if(d && !m)
n % 100)

strprep(hundreds[t], dest);


t++;


if(r)

switch(m)

case 0:
if(n % 10 != 1)

strprep(digits[r - 1], dest);

break;
case 1:
if(l && r == 1)

strprep(teens[l - 1], dest);

else

strprep(tens[r - 1], dest);

break;
case 2:
strcpy(d_cpy, digits[r - 1]);
strprep(strcat(d_cpy, "hundred "), dest);



l = r;
d++;


if(!strlen(dest))

strcpy(dest, "zero");




To provide some context, words() is called in main() (defined in the same file):



#include <limits.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv)
!(*argv[1])






beginner c numbers-to-words






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Aug 20 at 3:20

























asked Aug 20 at 1:54









hjkl

436




436







  • 1




    Posting examples usages of words(), or at least a description of how to use it would be helpful and allow even better answers.
    – chux
    Aug 20 at 2:51






  • 1




    This is a small thing but putting the opening braces on the previous line rather than on its own line would vastly* increase the readability of this particular piece of code (for one thing, the whole words function would now comfortably fit onto a single screen, rather than requiring scrolling).
    – Konrad Rudolph
    Aug 20 at 9:57







  • 2




    @KonradRudolph that's really a style preference. I personally find it vastly more legible when opening braces are on their own line rather than trailing the previous line.
    – jcaron
    Aug 20 at 14:01










  • @jcaron I don’t buy it, sorry. Try it for OP’s code: it’s so obviously more readable, there’s nothing I can add. Everybody always harps on about not exceeding horizontal space but vertical space also affects readability, and there are in fact multiple studies to back this up (Code Complete references some research).
    – Konrad Rudolph
    Aug 20 at 14:05







  • 1




    @KonradRudolph : Could we take discussion of indentation style to "Should curly braces appear on their own line?" ?
    – David Cary
    Aug 20 at 19:17












  • 1




    Posting examples usages of words(), or at least a description of how to use it would be helpful and allow even better answers.
    – chux
    Aug 20 at 2:51






  • 1




    This is a small thing but putting the opening braces on the previous line rather than on its own line would vastly* increase the readability of this particular piece of code (for one thing, the whole words function would now comfortably fit onto a single screen, rather than requiring scrolling).
    – Konrad Rudolph
    Aug 20 at 9:57







  • 2




    @KonradRudolph that's really a style preference. I personally find it vastly more legible when opening braces are on their own line rather than trailing the previous line.
    – jcaron
    Aug 20 at 14:01










  • @jcaron I don’t buy it, sorry. Try it for OP’s code: it’s so obviously more readable, there’s nothing I can add. Everybody always harps on about not exceeding horizontal space but vertical space also affects readability, and there are in fact multiple studies to back this up (Code Complete references some research).
    – Konrad Rudolph
    Aug 20 at 14:05







  • 1




    @KonradRudolph : Could we take discussion of indentation style to "Should curly braces appear on their own line?" ?
    – David Cary
    Aug 20 at 19:17







1




1




Posting examples usages of words(), or at least a description of how to use it would be helpful and allow even better answers.
– chux
Aug 20 at 2:51




Posting examples usages of words(), or at least a description of how to use it would be helpful and allow even better answers.
– chux
Aug 20 at 2:51




1




1




This is a small thing but putting the opening braces on the previous line rather than on its own line would vastly* increase the readability of this particular piece of code (for one thing, the whole words function would now comfortably fit onto a single screen, rather than requiring scrolling).
– Konrad Rudolph
Aug 20 at 9:57





This is a small thing but putting the opening braces on the previous line rather than on its own line would vastly* increase the readability of this particular piece of code (for one thing, the whole words function would now comfortably fit onto a single screen, rather than requiring scrolling).
– Konrad Rudolph
Aug 20 at 9:57





2




2




@KonradRudolph that's really a style preference. I personally find it vastly more legible when opening braces are on their own line rather than trailing the previous line.
– jcaron
Aug 20 at 14:01




@KonradRudolph that's really a style preference. I personally find it vastly more legible when opening braces are on their own line rather than trailing the previous line.
– jcaron
Aug 20 at 14:01












@jcaron I don’t buy it, sorry. Try it for OP’s code: it’s so obviously more readable, there’s nothing I can add. Everybody always harps on about not exceeding horizontal space but vertical space also affects readability, and there are in fact multiple studies to back this up (Code Complete references some research).
– Konrad Rudolph
Aug 20 at 14:05





@jcaron I don’t buy it, sorry. Try it for OP’s code: it’s so obviously more readable, there’s nothing I can add. Everybody always harps on about not exceeding horizontal space but vertical space also affects readability, and there are in fact multiple studies to back this up (Code Complete references some research).
– Konrad Rudolph
Aug 20 at 14:05





1




1




@KonradRudolph : Could we take discussion of indentation style to "Should curly braces appear on their own line?" ?
– David Cary
Aug 20 at 19:17




@KonradRudolph : Could we take discussion of indentation style to "Should curly braces appear on their own line?" ?
– David Cary
Aug 20 at 19:17










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
7
down vote



accepted










Design



Your function fails to write a NUL terminator at the end of the output. That means that the caller must zero the entire buffer before calling the function (or else use a static buffer).



The output does have a superfluous space at the end, though.



As a rule, whenever you call a function to write to a string buffer, you must also pass the buffer's size. Otherwise, the function has no way of knowing when to stop before the buffer overflows. (That's why poorly designed functions such as gets(char *buf) and sprintf(char *s, const char *format, …) should be shunned, and you should use the safer alternatives fgets(char *s, int n, FILE *stream) and snprintf(char *s, size_t n, const char *format, …) instead.)



Therefore, I recommend that words() be designed similar to snprintf(): it should accept one more parameter for the buffer size, and it should return the length of the string that was written (or should have been written).



It's annoying that your string arrays are off "off by one", such that you have to write -1 in digits[r - 1], teens[l - 1], and tens[r - 1].



The hundreds array is altogether misnamed, as it has nothing to do with hundreds. I'd call it scales.



Algorithm and implementation



Your string manipulation is inefficient:




  • Prepending any string (using strprep()) involves copying characters. It would be worthwhile to rework the algorithm such that it only needs to write its output sequentially and never needs to prepend anything.

  • If you did have to prepend a string, it would be smarter to avoid allocating a temporary string using strdup(), then freeing it. Using memmove(), with no temporarily allocated memory, would be smarter.

By the way, the strprep() function, being a helper function, should be declared static.



The special case…




if(!strlen(dest))

strcpy(dest, "zero");




… should be handled at the very beginning of words(), using if (n == 0), avoiding strlen(), which would have to traverse the output character by character to determine the length. (And remember, strlen() doesn't even work, since you don't ensure that the output is NUL-terminated.)



n = (n - r) / 10 can be simply written as n /= 10.



Nobody likes to read code with uncommented cryptic variable names like this:




unsigned int l, r, m, d = 0, t = 0;



After staring at your code for a very long time, I have figured out that…




  • d is the exponent of 10 (and would probably be better named exponent).


  • t is just d / 3 (and should therefore be eliminated).


  • m is just d % 3 (and should therefore be eliminated).


  • r is the rightmost digit currently being considered.


  • l is the digit to the right of r.

Minimal rewrite



Here is a slightly revised version of your code, with the following goals:




  • NUL terminator


  • strprep() without a temporary string allocation

  • character arrays without the off-by-one annoyance

  • simpler special case for 0

  • fewer variables, with more intuitive names

#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>

const char *digits = NULL, "one ", "two ", "three ", "four ", "five ", "six ", "seven ", "eight ", "nine " ;
const char *tens = NULL, "ten ", "twenty ", "thirty ", "forty ", "fifty ", "sixty ", "seventy ", "eighty ", "ninety " ;
const char *teens = "ten ", "eleven ", "twelve ", "thirteen ", "fourteen ", "fifteen ", "sixteen ", "seventeen ", "eighteen ", "nineteen " ;
const char *scales = "", "thousand ", "million ", "billion " ;

static void strprep(const char *prefix, char *dest)
size_t prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
memmove(dest + prefix_len, dest, strlen(dest) + 1);
memcpy(dest, prefix, prefix_len);


void words(unsigned int n, char *dest)
if (n == 0)
strcpy(dest, "zero");
return;


*dest = '';

int prev_digit;
for (int exponent = 0; n; exponent++)
int digit = n % 10,
remaining_digits = n / 10;

if ((exponent % 3 == 0) && (n % 1000))
strprep(scales[exponent / 3], dest);


if (digit)
switch (exponent % 3)
case 0:
if (remaining_digits % 10 != 1)
strprep(digits[digit], dest);

break;
case 1:
if (digit == 1)
strprep(teens[prev_digit], dest);
else
strprep(tens[digit], dest);

break;
case 2:
strprep("hundred ", dest);
strprep(digits[digit], dest);
break;



prev_digit = digit;
n = remaining_digits;




Suggested solution



I recommend using a completely different algorithm, because:



  • For efficiency, the algorithm needs to always append, never prepend.

  • You need to keep track of the number of bytes written, so as to avoid buffer overflow.


  • Your algorithm is hard to understand. When considering the ones digit, it needs to look ahead to see whether the tens digit is 1, in which case it should temporarily output nothing. When considering the tens digit, if it's 1, then it needs to consult the previously saved ones digit (which is the only place where l is used).



    I recommend considering groups of three digits at a time, so that you have a variable which represents the hundreds, the tens, and the ones digit.



This ends up being a lot of snprintf() calls, keeping track of the number of characters written.



#include <assert.h>
#include <stdio.h>

static const char *digits =
"", "one", "two", "three", "four", "five",
"six", "seven", "eight", "nine"
;
static const char *teens =
"ten", "eleven", "twelve", "thirteen", "fourteen",
"fifteen", "sixteen", "seventeen", "eighteen", "nineteen"
;
static const char *tens =
"", "ten", "twenty", "thirty", "forty",
"fifty", "sixty", "seventy", "eighty", "ninety"
;
static const char *scales = "", "thousand", "million", "billion" ;

/**
* Given 0 <= n < 1000, writes n as English words to buf, followed by a NUL
* terminator. If n == 0, then just a NUL terminator is written.
*
* Returns the length of the output written, excluding the NUL terminator
* (or the length of the string that should have been written, if the return
* value is greater than or equal to the buffer size).
*/
static int words1k(int n, char *buf, size_t size)
assert(0 <= n && n < 1000);
int h = n / 100,
t = (n % 100) / 10,
o = (n % 10);
switch (t)
case 0:
return snprintf(buf, size, "%s%s%s%s",
digits[h], (h ? " hundred" : ""),
(h && o ? " " : ""), digits[o]);
case 1:
return snprintf(buf, size, "%s%s%s",
digits[h], (h ? " hundred " : ""), teens[o]);
default:
return snprintf(buf, size, "%s%s%s%s%s",
digits[h], (h ? " hundred " : ""),
tens[t], (t && o ? "-" : ""), digits[o]);



/**
* Writes n as English words to buf, followed by a NUL terminator.
* (A buffer size of 120 is recommended.)
*
* Returns the length of the output written, excluding the NUL terminator
* (or the length of the string that should have been written, if the return
* value is greater than or equal to the buffer size).
*/
int words(unsigned int n, char *buf, size_t size)
size_t len = 0;
if (n == 0)
return snprintf(buf, size, "zero");
/* else if (n < 0)
int nlen = snprintf(buf, size, "negative ");
len = words(-n, buf + nlen, (size > nlen ? size - nlen : 0));
return nlen + len;
*/
for (int s = 3, scale = 1000000000; s >= 0; s--, scale /= 1000)
// If there was any previous output, leave room for a space after it
int start_pos = len ? len + 1 : 0;
int klen = words1k(n / scale, buf + start_pos, (size > start_pos ? size - start_pos : 0));
// If there was previous output and recent output, then write the space
if (len && klen)
if (len < size) buf[len] = ' ';
len++;

len += klen;
if (klen && s)
len += snprintf(buf + len, (size > len ? size - len : 0), " %s", scales[s]);

n %= scale;

return len;






share|improve this answer





























    up vote
    10
    down vote













    1. Keep your line-length under control. Horizontal scrolling is death on readability.



    2. strprep() is extremely inefficient, and even assuming the destination is big enough, you don't check whether allocation of your needless temporary buffer succeeds. Better to fix that:



      char *strprep(const char *prefix, char *dest) 
      size_t prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
      memmove(dest + prefix_len, dest, strlen(dest) + 1);
      memcpy(dest, prefix, prefix_len);
      return dest;



    3. Assuming a user-supplied Buffer contains an empty string for no reason is certainly an interesting decision. It violates the principle of least surprise though, and leads to Undefined Behavior if the assumption proves unfounded.


    4. I won't try to decipher what your cryptic single-character variables in words() are for. Do everyone (especially yourself) a favor and invest some more into finding good names.



    5. Using strlen() to decide whether a string is empty? That's an $O(n)$ call where a primitive direct check is sufficient:



      if (!*dest) // dest is empty


      Most optimizing compilers in hosted mode will succeed in lowering it to the above, but why write that much more and rely on it?



    6. Actually, check for zero beforehand instead. No need to do so after failing to put it into words some other way.


    7. Either your example code violates the contract of words(), or words is buggy. I suggest fixing words() to not assume the buffer is pre-filled with an empty string.


    8. Consider merging multiple outputs into one request. Don't worry, due to adjacent string-literals being concatenated by the compiler, that need not result in one humungous string-literal.






    share|improve this answer






















    • To not violate the principle of least surprise, should the code simply overwrite the already existent data in the user-supplied buffer? Or should it indicate some kind of error in that case?
      – hjkl
      Aug 20 at 3:42






    • 1




      Re: !strlen(dest). A good compiler uses analyze-ability of common std functions like strlen() to emit the same code as for !*dest. Still, I would also recommend if (!*dest) or the like if (*dest == '')
      – chux
      Aug 20 at 3:45










    • @chux No doubt many good compilers do so. Still, why rely on having a sufficiently clever compiler to fix needlessly convoluted code in the first place...
      – Deduplicator
      Aug 20 at 4:17






    • 2




      I strongly disagree with 1. The days of 80-char screens is long gone. Most of us do programming work on 26-28-30" screens and this gives us plenty of horizontal room. And even if not, having a definition that will be visited once in a blue moon simply doesn't justify it. I'd never slice such an initial declaration into several lines even if it takes up more than several screen widths. Of course, if you print or copy to places like SO, this is a small nuisance that you have to solve. But it doesn't warrant changing your own habits regarding your own code.
      – Gábor
      Aug 20 at 10:43






    • 1




      @Gábor "The days of 80-char screens is long gone." . Hmm Stack Exchange here uses about a 90 character width. With an auto-formatter, setting that line width to match the code review presentation width is then easy to perform and would have made review easier. Code that does not present well after an auto formatter is higher maintenance. As with such style issues (line width, braces, spacing, etc.) , code should adhere to the group's coding standard vs a personal preference.
      – chux
      Aug 20 at 12:14

















    up vote
    3
    down vote













    Consider what



    char buf[256];
    puts(words(0, buf));


    with words() below.



    strlen(dest) would be undefined behavior as buf was never initialized and so a null character may not be found with strlen(dest) before searching outside buf bounds.



    while(n)
    ...
    if(!strlen(dest))

    strcpy(dest, "zero");






    share|improve this answer




















    • If !*dest is used to check if dest is an empty string instead of !strlen(dest), could the fact that buf is never initialized still result in undefined behavior?
      – hjkl
      Aug 20 at 4:05






    • 2




      @hjkl Treating uninitialized memory as a string or anything else is always a problem.
      – Deduplicator
      Aug 20 at 4:10










    • @hjkl "could the fact that buf is never initialized still result in undefined behavior?" --> Yes, reading uninitialized memory for any reason is a problem. On 2nd thought it might be implementation defined behavior, and there are some special exceptions for reading unsigned char, but it is not a !*dest versus !strlen(dest) concern, both are problematic in OP's code.
      – chux
      Aug 20 at 4:55











    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    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',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    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%2f202007%2fintegers-to-english-words-in-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    7
    down vote



    accepted










    Design



    Your function fails to write a NUL terminator at the end of the output. That means that the caller must zero the entire buffer before calling the function (or else use a static buffer).



    The output does have a superfluous space at the end, though.



    As a rule, whenever you call a function to write to a string buffer, you must also pass the buffer's size. Otherwise, the function has no way of knowing when to stop before the buffer overflows. (That's why poorly designed functions such as gets(char *buf) and sprintf(char *s, const char *format, …) should be shunned, and you should use the safer alternatives fgets(char *s, int n, FILE *stream) and snprintf(char *s, size_t n, const char *format, …) instead.)



    Therefore, I recommend that words() be designed similar to snprintf(): it should accept one more parameter for the buffer size, and it should return the length of the string that was written (or should have been written).



    It's annoying that your string arrays are off "off by one", such that you have to write -1 in digits[r - 1], teens[l - 1], and tens[r - 1].



    The hundreds array is altogether misnamed, as it has nothing to do with hundreds. I'd call it scales.



    Algorithm and implementation



    Your string manipulation is inefficient:




    • Prepending any string (using strprep()) involves copying characters. It would be worthwhile to rework the algorithm such that it only needs to write its output sequentially and never needs to prepend anything.

    • If you did have to prepend a string, it would be smarter to avoid allocating a temporary string using strdup(), then freeing it. Using memmove(), with no temporarily allocated memory, would be smarter.

    By the way, the strprep() function, being a helper function, should be declared static.



    The special case…




    if(!strlen(dest))

    strcpy(dest, "zero");




    … should be handled at the very beginning of words(), using if (n == 0), avoiding strlen(), which would have to traverse the output character by character to determine the length. (And remember, strlen() doesn't even work, since you don't ensure that the output is NUL-terminated.)



    n = (n - r) / 10 can be simply written as n /= 10.



    Nobody likes to read code with uncommented cryptic variable names like this:




    unsigned int l, r, m, d = 0, t = 0;



    After staring at your code for a very long time, I have figured out that…




    • d is the exponent of 10 (and would probably be better named exponent).


    • t is just d / 3 (and should therefore be eliminated).


    • m is just d % 3 (and should therefore be eliminated).


    • r is the rightmost digit currently being considered.


    • l is the digit to the right of r.

    Minimal rewrite



    Here is a slightly revised version of your code, with the following goals:




    • NUL terminator


    • strprep() without a temporary string allocation

    • character arrays without the off-by-one annoyance

    • simpler special case for 0

    • fewer variables, with more intuitive names

    #include <stdlib.h>
    #include <string.h>

    const char *digits = NULL, "one ", "two ", "three ", "four ", "five ", "six ", "seven ", "eight ", "nine " ;
    const char *tens = NULL, "ten ", "twenty ", "thirty ", "forty ", "fifty ", "sixty ", "seventy ", "eighty ", "ninety " ;
    const char *teens = "ten ", "eleven ", "twelve ", "thirteen ", "fourteen ", "fifteen ", "sixteen ", "seventeen ", "eighteen ", "nineteen " ;
    const char *scales = "", "thousand ", "million ", "billion " ;

    static void strprep(const char *prefix, char *dest)
    size_t prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
    memmove(dest + prefix_len, dest, strlen(dest) + 1);
    memcpy(dest, prefix, prefix_len);


    void words(unsigned int n, char *dest)
    if (n == 0)
    strcpy(dest, "zero");
    return;


    *dest = '';

    int prev_digit;
    for (int exponent = 0; n; exponent++)
    int digit = n % 10,
    remaining_digits = n / 10;

    if ((exponent % 3 == 0) && (n % 1000))
    strprep(scales[exponent / 3], dest);


    if (digit)
    switch (exponent % 3)
    case 0:
    if (remaining_digits % 10 != 1)
    strprep(digits[digit], dest);

    break;
    case 1:
    if (digit == 1)
    strprep(teens[prev_digit], dest);
    else
    strprep(tens[digit], dest);

    break;
    case 2:
    strprep("hundred ", dest);
    strprep(digits[digit], dest);
    break;



    prev_digit = digit;
    n = remaining_digits;




    Suggested solution



    I recommend using a completely different algorithm, because:



    • For efficiency, the algorithm needs to always append, never prepend.

    • You need to keep track of the number of bytes written, so as to avoid buffer overflow.


    • Your algorithm is hard to understand. When considering the ones digit, it needs to look ahead to see whether the tens digit is 1, in which case it should temporarily output nothing. When considering the tens digit, if it's 1, then it needs to consult the previously saved ones digit (which is the only place where l is used).



      I recommend considering groups of three digits at a time, so that you have a variable which represents the hundreds, the tens, and the ones digit.



    This ends up being a lot of snprintf() calls, keeping track of the number of characters written.



    #include <assert.h>
    #include <stdio.h>

    static const char *digits =
    "", "one", "two", "three", "four", "five",
    "six", "seven", "eight", "nine"
    ;
    static const char *teens =
    "ten", "eleven", "twelve", "thirteen", "fourteen",
    "fifteen", "sixteen", "seventeen", "eighteen", "nineteen"
    ;
    static const char *tens =
    "", "ten", "twenty", "thirty", "forty",
    "fifty", "sixty", "seventy", "eighty", "ninety"
    ;
    static const char *scales = "", "thousand", "million", "billion" ;

    /**
    * Given 0 <= n < 1000, writes n as English words to buf, followed by a NUL
    * terminator. If n == 0, then just a NUL terminator is written.
    *
    * Returns the length of the output written, excluding the NUL terminator
    * (or the length of the string that should have been written, if the return
    * value is greater than or equal to the buffer size).
    */
    static int words1k(int n, char *buf, size_t size)
    assert(0 <= n && n < 1000);
    int h = n / 100,
    t = (n % 100) / 10,
    o = (n % 10);
    switch (t)
    case 0:
    return snprintf(buf, size, "%s%s%s%s",
    digits[h], (h ? " hundred" : ""),
    (h && o ? " " : ""), digits[o]);
    case 1:
    return snprintf(buf, size, "%s%s%s",
    digits[h], (h ? " hundred " : ""), teens[o]);
    default:
    return snprintf(buf, size, "%s%s%s%s%s",
    digits[h], (h ? " hundred " : ""),
    tens[t], (t && o ? "-" : ""), digits[o]);



    /**
    * Writes n as English words to buf, followed by a NUL terminator.
    * (A buffer size of 120 is recommended.)
    *
    * Returns the length of the output written, excluding the NUL terminator
    * (or the length of the string that should have been written, if the return
    * value is greater than or equal to the buffer size).
    */
    int words(unsigned int n, char *buf, size_t size)
    size_t len = 0;
    if (n == 0)
    return snprintf(buf, size, "zero");
    /* else if (n < 0)
    int nlen = snprintf(buf, size, "negative ");
    len = words(-n, buf + nlen, (size > nlen ? size - nlen : 0));
    return nlen + len;
    */
    for (int s = 3, scale = 1000000000; s >= 0; s--, scale /= 1000)
    // If there was any previous output, leave room for a space after it
    int start_pos = len ? len + 1 : 0;
    int klen = words1k(n / scale, buf + start_pos, (size > start_pos ? size - start_pos : 0));
    // If there was previous output and recent output, then write the space
    if (len && klen)
    if (len < size) buf[len] = ' ';
    len++;

    len += klen;
    if (klen && s)
    len += snprintf(buf + len, (size > len ? size - len : 0), " %s", scales[s]);

    n %= scale;

    return len;






    share|improve this answer


























      up vote
      7
      down vote



      accepted










      Design



      Your function fails to write a NUL terminator at the end of the output. That means that the caller must zero the entire buffer before calling the function (or else use a static buffer).



      The output does have a superfluous space at the end, though.



      As a rule, whenever you call a function to write to a string buffer, you must also pass the buffer's size. Otherwise, the function has no way of knowing when to stop before the buffer overflows. (That's why poorly designed functions such as gets(char *buf) and sprintf(char *s, const char *format, …) should be shunned, and you should use the safer alternatives fgets(char *s, int n, FILE *stream) and snprintf(char *s, size_t n, const char *format, …) instead.)



      Therefore, I recommend that words() be designed similar to snprintf(): it should accept one more parameter for the buffer size, and it should return the length of the string that was written (or should have been written).



      It's annoying that your string arrays are off "off by one", such that you have to write -1 in digits[r - 1], teens[l - 1], and tens[r - 1].



      The hundreds array is altogether misnamed, as it has nothing to do with hundreds. I'd call it scales.



      Algorithm and implementation



      Your string manipulation is inefficient:




      • Prepending any string (using strprep()) involves copying characters. It would be worthwhile to rework the algorithm such that it only needs to write its output sequentially and never needs to prepend anything.

      • If you did have to prepend a string, it would be smarter to avoid allocating a temporary string using strdup(), then freeing it. Using memmove(), with no temporarily allocated memory, would be smarter.

      By the way, the strprep() function, being a helper function, should be declared static.



      The special case…




      if(!strlen(dest))

      strcpy(dest, "zero");




      … should be handled at the very beginning of words(), using if (n == 0), avoiding strlen(), which would have to traverse the output character by character to determine the length. (And remember, strlen() doesn't even work, since you don't ensure that the output is NUL-terminated.)



      n = (n - r) / 10 can be simply written as n /= 10.



      Nobody likes to read code with uncommented cryptic variable names like this:




      unsigned int l, r, m, d = 0, t = 0;



      After staring at your code for a very long time, I have figured out that…




      • d is the exponent of 10 (and would probably be better named exponent).


      • t is just d / 3 (and should therefore be eliminated).


      • m is just d % 3 (and should therefore be eliminated).


      • r is the rightmost digit currently being considered.


      • l is the digit to the right of r.

      Minimal rewrite



      Here is a slightly revised version of your code, with the following goals:




      • NUL terminator


      • strprep() without a temporary string allocation

      • character arrays without the off-by-one annoyance

      • simpler special case for 0

      • fewer variables, with more intuitive names

      #include <stdlib.h>
      #include <string.h>

      const char *digits = NULL, "one ", "two ", "three ", "four ", "five ", "six ", "seven ", "eight ", "nine " ;
      const char *tens = NULL, "ten ", "twenty ", "thirty ", "forty ", "fifty ", "sixty ", "seventy ", "eighty ", "ninety " ;
      const char *teens = "ten ", "eleven ", "twelve ", "thirteen ", "fourteen ", "fifteen ", "sixteen ", "seventeen ", "eighteen ", "nineteen " ;
      const char *scales = "", "thousand ", "million ", "billion " ;

      static void strprep(const char *prefix, char *dest)
      size_t prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
      memmove(dest + prefix_len, dest, strlen(dest) + 1);
      memcpy(dest, prefix, prefix_len);


      void words(unsigned int n, char *dest)
      if (n == 0)
      strcpy(dest, "zero");
      return;


      *dest = '';

      int prev_digit;
      for (int exponent = 0; n; exponent++)
      int digit = n % 10,
      remaining_digits = n / 10;

      if ((exponent % 3 == 0) && (n % 1000))
      strprep(scales[exponent / 3], dest);


      if (digit)
      switch (exponent % 3)
      case 0:
      if (remaining_digits % 10 != 1)
      strprep(digits[digit], dest);

      break;
      case 1:
      if (digit == 1)
      strprep(teens[prev_digit], dest);
      else
      strprep(tens[digit], dest);

      break;
      case 2:
      strprep("hundred ", dest);
      strprep(digits[digit], dest);
      break;



      prev_digit = digit;
      n = remaining_digits;




      Suggested solution



      I recommend using a completely different algorithm, because:



      • For efficiency, the algorithm needs to always append, never prepend.

      • You need to keep track of the number of bytes written, so as to avoid buffer overflow.


      • Your algorithm is hard to understand. When considering the ones digit, it needs to look ahead to see whether the tens digit is 1, in which case it should temporarily output nothing. When considering the tens digit, if it's 1, then it needs to consult the previously saved ones digit (which is the only place where l is used).



        I recommend considering groups of three digits at a time, so that you have a variable which represents the hundreds, the tens, and the ones digit.



      This ends up being a lot of snprintf() calls, keeping track of the number of characters written.



      #include <assert.h>
      #include <stdio.h>

      static const char *digits =
      "", "one", "two", "three", "four", "five",
      "six", "seven", "eight", "nine"
      ;
      static const char *teens =
      "ten", "eleven", "twelve", "thirteen", "fourteen",
      "fifteen", "sixteen", "seventeen", "eighteen", "nineteen"
      ;
      static const char *tens =
      "", "ten", "twenty", "thirty", "forty",
      "fifty", "sixty", "seventy", "eighty", "ninety"
      ;
      static const char *scales = "", "thousand", "million", "billion" ;

      /**
      * Given 0 <= n < 1000, writes n as English words to buf, followed by a NUL
      * terminator. If n == 0, then just a NUL terminator is written.
      *
      * Returns the length of the output written, excluding the NUL terminator
      * (or the length of the string that should have been written, if the return
      * value is greater than or equal to the buffer size).
      */
      static int words1k(int n, char *buf, size_t size)
      assert(0 <= n && n < 1000);
      int h = n / 100,
      t = (n % 100) / 10,
      o = (n % 10);
      switch (t)
      case 0:
      return snprintf(buf, size, "%s%s%s%s",
      digits[h], (h ? " hundred" : ""),
      (h && o ? " " : ""), digits[o]);
      case 1:
      return snprintf(buf, size, "%s%s%s",
      digits[h], (h ? " hundred " : ""), teens[o]);
      default:
      return snprintf(buf, size, "%s%s%s%s%s",
      digits[h], (h ? " hundred " : ""),
      tens[t], (t && o ? "-" : ""), digits[o]);



      /**
      * Writes n as English words to buf, followed by a NUL terminator.
      * (A buffer size of 120 is recommended.)
      *
      * Returns the length of the output written, excluding the NUL terminator
      * (or the length of the string that should have been written, if the return
      * value is greater than or equal to the buffer size).
      */
      int words(unsigned int n, char *buf, size_t size)
      size_t len = 0;
      if (n == 0)
      return snprintf(buf, size, "zero");
      /* else if (n < 0)
      int nlen = snprintf(buf, size, "negative ");
      len = words(-n, buf + nlen, (size > nlen ? size - nlen : 0));
      return nlen + len;
      */
      for (int s = 3, scale = 1000000000; s >= 0; s--, scale /= 1000)
      // If there was any previous output, leave room for a space after it
      int start_pos = len ? len + 1 : 0;
      int klen = words1k(n / scale, buf + start_pos, (size > start_pos ? size - start_pos : 0));
      // If there was previous output and recent output, then write the space
      if (len && klen)
      if (len < size) buf[len] = ' ';
      len++;

      len += klen;
      if (klen && s)
      len += snprintf(buf + len, (size > len ? size - len : 0), " %s", scales[s]);

      n %= scale;

      return len;






      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        7
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        7
        down vote



        accepted






        Design



        Your function fails to write a NUL terminator at the end of the output. That means that the caller must zero the entire buffer before calling the function (or else use a static buffer).



        The output does have a superfluous space at the end, though.



        As a rule, whenever you call a function to write to a string buffer, you must also pass the buffer's size. Otherwise, the function has no way of knowing when to stop before the buffer overflows. (That's why poorly designed functions such as gets(char *buf) and sprintf(char *s, const char *format, …) should be shunned, and you should use the safer alternatives fgets(char *s, int n, FILE *stream) and snprintf(char *s, size_t n, const char *format, …) instead.)



        Therefore, I recommend that words() be designed similar to snprintf(): it should accept one more parameter for the buffer size, and it should return the length of the string that was written (or should have been written).



        It's annoying that your string arrays are off "off by one", such that you have to write -1 in digits[r - 1], teens[l - 1], and tens[r - 1].



        The hundreds array is altogether misnamed, as it has nothing to do with hundreds. I'd call it scales.



        Algorithm and implementation



        Your string manipulation is inefficient:




        • Prepending any string (using strprep()) involves copying characters. It would be worthwhile to rework the algorithm such that it only needs to write its output sequentially and never needs to prepend anything.

        • If you did have to prepend a string, it would be smarter to avoid allocating a temporary string using strdup(), then freeing it. Using memmove(), with no temporarily allocated memory, would be smarter.

        By the way, the strprep() function, being a helper function, should be declared static.



        The special case…




        if(!strlen(dest))

        strcpy(dest, "zero");




        … should be handled at the very beginning of words(), using if (n == 0), avoiding strlen(), which would have to traverse the output character by character to determine the length. (And remember, strlen() doesn't even work, since you don't ensure that the output is NUL-terminated.)



        n = (n - r) / 10 can be simply written as n /= 10.



        Nobody likes to read code with uncommented cryptic variable names like this:




        unsigned int l, r, m, d = 0, t = 0;



        After staring at your code for a very long time, I have figured out that…




        • d is the exponent of 10 (and would probably be better named exponent).


        • t is just d / 3 (and should therefore be eliminated).


        • m is just d % 3 (and should therefore be eliminated).


        • r is the rightmost digit currently being considered.


        • l is the digit to the right of r.

        Minimal rewrite



        Here is a slightly revised version of your code, with the following goals:




        • NUL terminator


        • strprep() without a temporary string allocation

        • character arrays without the off-by-one annoyance

        • simpler special case for 0

        • fewer variables, with more intuitive names

        #include <stdlib.h>
        #include <string.h>

        const char *digits = NULL, "one ", "two ", "three ", "four ", "five ", "six ", "seven ", "eight ", "nine " ;
        const char *tens = NULL, "ten ", "twenty ", "thirty ", "forty ", "fifty ", "sixty ", "seventy ", "eighty ", "ninety " ;
        const char *teens = "ten ", "eleven ", "twelve ", "thirteen ", "fourteen ", "fifteen ", "sixteen ", "seventeen ", "eighteen ", "nineteen " ;
        const char *scales = "", "thousand ", "million ", "billion " ;

        static void strprep(const char *prefix, char *dest)
        size_t prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
        memmove(dest + prefix_len, dest, strlen(dest) + 1);
        memcpy(dest, prefix, prefix_len);


        void words(unsigned int n, char *dest)
        if (n == 0)
        strcpy(dest, "zero");
        return;


        *dest = '';

        int prev_digit;
        for (int exponent = 0; n; exponent++)
        int digit = n % 10,
        remaining_digits = n / 10;

        if ((exponent % 3 == 0) && (n % 1000))
        strprep(scales[exponent / 3], dest);


        if (digit)
        switch (exponent % 3)
        case 0:
        if (remaining_digits % 10 != 1)
        strprep(digits[digit], dest);

        break;
        case 1:
        if (digit == 1)
        strprep(teens[prev_digit], dest);
        else
        strprep(tens[digit], dest);

        break;
        case 2:
        strprep("hundred ", dest);
        strprep(digits[digit], dest);
        break;



        prev_digit = digit;
        n = remaining_digits;




        Suggested solution



        I recommend using a completely different algorithm, because:



        • For efficiency, the algorithm needs to always append, never prepend.

        • You need to keep track of the number of bytes written, so as to avoid buffer overflow.


        • Your algorithm is hard to understand. When considering the ones digit, it needs to look ahead to see whether the tens digit is 1, in which case it should temporarily output nothing. When considering the tens digit, if it's 1, then it needs to consult the previously saved ones digit (which is the only place where l is used).



          I recommend considering groups of three digits at a time, so that you have a variable which represents the hundreds, the tens, and the ones digit.



        This ends up being a lot of snprintf() calls, keeping track of the number of characters written.



        #include <assert.h>
        #include <stdio.h>

        static const char *digits =
        "", "one", "two", "three", "four", "five",
        "six", "seven", "eight", "nine"
        ;
        static const char *teens =
        "ten", "eleven", "twelve", "thirteen", "fourteen",
        "fifteen", "sixteen", "seventeen", "eighteen", "nineteen"
        ;
        static const char *tens =
        "", "ten", "twenty", "thirty", "forty",
        "fifty", "sixty", "seventy", "eighty", "ninety"
        ;
        static const char *scales = "", "thousand", "million", "billion" ;

        /**
        * Given 0 <= n < 1000, writes n as English words to buf, followed by a NUL
        * terminator. If n == 0, then just a NUL terminator is written.
        *
        * Returns the length of the output written, excluding the NUL terminator
        * (or the length of the string that should have been written, if the return
        * value is greater than or equal to the buffer size).
        */
        static int words1k(int n, char *buf, size_t size)
        assert(0 <= n && n < 1000);
        int h = n / 100,
        t = (n % 100) / 10,
        o = (n % 10);
        switch (t)
        case 0:
        return snprintf(buf, size, "%s%s%s%s",
        digits[h], (h ? " hundred" : ""),
        (h && o ? " " : ""), digits[o]);
        case 1:
        return snprintf(buf, size, "%s%s%s",
        digits[h], (h ? " hundred " : ""), teens[o]);
        default:
        return snprintf(buf, size, "%s%s%s%s%s",
        digits[h], (h ? " hundred " : ""),
        tens[t], (t && o ? "-" : ""), digits[o]);



        /**
        * Writes n as English words to buf, followed by a NUL terminator.
        * (A buffer size of 120 is recommended.)
        *
        * Returns the length of the output written, excluding the NUL terminator
        * (or the length of the string that should have been written, if the return
        * value is greater than or equal to the buffer size).
        */
        int words(unsigned int n, char *buf, size_t size)
        size_t len = 0;
        if (n == 0)
        return snprintf(buf, size, "zero");
        /* else if (n < 0)
        int nlen = snprintf(buf, size, "negative ");
        len = words(-n, buf + nlen, (size > nlen ? size - nlen : 0));
        return nlen + len;
        */
        for (int s = 3, scale = 1000000000; s >= 0; s--, scale /= 1000)
        // If there was any previous output, leave room for a space after it
        int start_pos = len ? len + 1 : 0;
        int klen = words1k(n / scale, buf + start_pos, (size > start_pos ? size - start_pos : 0));
        // If there was previous output and recent output, then write the space
        if (len && klen)
        if (len < size) buf[len] = ' ';
        len++;

        len += klen;
        if (klen && s)
        len += snprintf(buf + len, (size > len ? size - len : 0), " %s", scales[s]);

        n %= scale;

        return len;






        share|improve this answer














        Design



        Your function fails to write a NUL terminator at the end of the output. That means that the caller must zero the entire buffer before calling the function (or else use a static buffer).



        The output does have a superfluous space at the end, though.



        As a rule, whenever you call a function to write to a string buffer, you must also pass the buffer's size. Otherwise, the function has no way of knowing when to stop before the buffer overflows. (That's why poorly designed functions such as gets(char *buf) and sprintf(char *s, const char *format, …) should be shunned, and you should use the safer alternatives fgets(char *s, int n, FILE *stream) and snprintf(char *s, size_t n, const char *format, …) instead.)



        Therefore, I recommend that words() be designed similar to snprintf(): it should accept one more parameter for the buffer size, and it should return the length of the string that was written (or should have been written).



        It's annoying that your string arrays are off "off by one", such that you have to write -1 in digits[r - 1], teens[l - 1], and tens[r - 1].



        The hundreds array is altogether misnamed, as it has nothing to do with hundreds. I'd call it scales.



        Algorithm and implementation



        Your string manipulation is inefficient:




        • Prepending any string (using strprep()) involves copying characters. It would be worthwhile to rework the algorithm such that it only needs to write its output sequentially and never needs to prepend anything.

        • If you did have to prepend a string, it would be smarter to avoid allocating a temporary string using strdup(), then freeing it. Using memmove(), with no temporarily allocated memory, would be smarter.

        By the way, the strprep() function, being a helper function, should be declared static.



        The special case…




        if(!strlen(dest))

        strcpy(dest, "zero");




        … should be handled at the very beginning of words(), using if (n == 0), avoiding strlen(), which would have to traverse the output character by character to determine the length. (And remember, strlen() doesn't even work, since you don't ensure that the output is NUL-terminated.)



        n = (n - r) / 10 can be simply written as n /= 10.



        Nobody likes to read code with uncommented cryptic variable names like this:




        unsigned int l, r, m, d = 0, t = 0;



        After staring at your code for a very long time, I have figured out that…




        • d is the exponent of 10 (and would probably be better named exponent).


        • t is just d / 3 (and should therefore be eliminated).


        • m is just d % 3 (and should therefore be eliminated).


        • r is the rightmost digit currently being considered.


        • l is the digit to the right of r.

        Minimal rewrite



        Here is a slightly revised version of your code, with the following goals:




        • NUL terminator


        • strprep() without a temporary string allocation

        • character arrays without the off-by-one annoyance

        • simpler special case for 0

        • fewer variables, with more intuitive names

        #include <stdlib.h>
        #include <string.h>

        const char *digits = NULL, "one ", "two ", "three ", "four ", "five ", "six ", "seven ", "eight ", "nine " ;
        const char *tens = NULL, "ten ", "twenty ", "thirty ", "forty ", "fifty ", "sixty ", "seventy ", "eighty ", "ninety " ;
        const char *teens = "ten ", "eleven ", "twelve ", "thirteen ", "fourteen ", "fifteen ", "sixteen ", "seventeen ", "eighteen ", "nineteen " ;
        const char *scales = "", "thousand ", "million ", "billion " ;

        static void strprep(const char *prefix, char *dest)
        size_t prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
        memmove(dest + prefix_len, dest, strlen(dest) + 1);
        memcpy(dest, prefix, prefix_len);


        void words(unsigned int n, char *dest)
        if (n == 0)
        strcpy(dest, "zero");
        return;


        *dest = '';

        int prev_digit;
        for (int exponent = 0; n; exponent++)
        int digit = n % 10,
        remaining_digits = n / 10;

        if ((exponent % 3 == 0) && (n % 1000))
        strprep(scales[exponent / 3], dest);


        if (digit)
        switch (exponent % 3)
        case 0:
        if (remaining_digits % 10 != 1)
        strprep(digits[digit], dest);

        break;
        case 1:
        if (digit == 1)
        strprep(teens[prev_digit], dest);
        else
        strprep(tens[digit], dest);

        break;
        case 2:
        strprep("hundred ", dest);
        strprep(digits[digit], dest);
        break;



        prev_digit = digit;
        n = remaining_digits;




        Suggested solution



        I recommend using a completely different algorithm, because:



        • For efficiency, the algorithm needs to always append, never prepend.

        • You need to keep track of the number of bytes written, so as to avoid buffer overflow.


        • Your algorithm is hard to understand. When considering the ones digit, it needs to look ahead to see whether the tens digit is 1, in which case it should temporarily output nothing. When considering the tens digit, if it's 1, then it needs to consult the previously saved ones digit (which is the only place where l is used).



          I recommend considering groups of three digits at a time, so that you have a variable which represents the hundreds, the tens, and the ones digit.



        This ends up being a lot of snprintf() calls, keeping track of the number of characters written.



        #include <assert.h>
        #include <stdio.h>

        static const char *digits =
        "", "one", "two", "three", "four", "five",
        "six", "seven", "eight", "nine"
        ;
        static const char *teens =
        "ten", "eleven", "twelve", "thirteen", "fourteen",
        "fifteen", "sixteen", "seventeen", "eighteen", "nineteen"
        ;
        static const char *tens =
        "", "ten", "twenty", "thirty", "forty",
        "fifty", "sixty", "seventy", "eighty", "ninety"
        ;
        static const char *scales = "", "thousand", "million", "billion" ;

        /**
        * Given 0 <= n < 1000, writes n as English words to buf, followed by a NUL
        * terminator. If n == 0, then just a NUL terminator is written.
        *
        * Returns the length of the output written, excluding the NUL terminator
        * (or the length of the string that should have been written, if the return
        * value is greater than or equal to the buffer size).
        */
        static int words1k(int n, char *buf, size_t size)
        assert(0 <= n && n < 1000);
        int h = n / 100,
        t = (n % 100) / 10,
        o = (n % 10);
        switch (t)
        case 0:
        return snprintf(buf, size, "%s%s%s%s",
        digits[h], (h ? " hundred" : ""),
        (h && o ? " " : ""), digits[o]);
        case 1:
        return snprintf(buf, size, "%s%s%s",
        digits[h], (h ? " hundred " : ""), teens[o]);
        default:
        return snprintf(buf, size, "%s%s%s%s%s",
        digits[h], (h ? " hundred " : ""),
        tens[t], (t && o ? "-" : ""), digits[o]);



        /**
        * Writes n as English words to buf, followed by a NUL terminator.
        * (A buffer size of 120 is recommended.)
        *
        * Returns the length of the output written, excluding the NUL terminator
        * (or the length of the string that should have been written, if the return
        * value is greater than or equal to the buffer size).
        */
        int words(unsigned int n, char *buf, size_t size)
        size_t len = 0;
        if (n == 0)
        return snprintf(buf, size, "zero");
        /* else if (n < 0)
        int nlen = snprintf(buf, size, "negative ");
        len = words(-n, buf + nlen, (size > nlen ? size - nlen : 0));
        return nlen + len;
        */
        for (int s = 3, scale = 1000000000; s >= 0; s--, scale /= 1000)
        // If there was any previous output, leave room for a space after it
        int start_pos = len ? len + 1 : 0;
        int klen = words1k(n / scale, buf + start_pos, (size > start_pos ? size - start_pos : 0));
        // If there was previous output and recent output, then write the space
        if (len && klen)
        if (len < size) buf[len] = ' ';
        len++;

        len += klen;
        if (klen && s)
        len += snprintf(buf + len, (size > len ? size - len : 0), " %s", scales[s]);

        n %= scale;

        return len;







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Aug 20 at 7:51

























        answered Aug 20 at 6:57









        200_success

        124k14144401




        124k14144401






















            up vote
            10
            down vote













            1. Keep your line-length under control. Horizontal scrolling is death on readability.



            2. strprep() is extremely inefficient, and even assuming the destination is big enough, you don't check whether allocation of your needless temporary buffer succeeds. Better to fix that:



              char *strprep(const char *prefix, char *dest) 
              size_t prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
              memmove(dest + prefix_len, dest, strlen(dest) + 1);
              memcpy(dest, prefix, prefix_len);
              return dest;



            3. Assuming a user-supplied Buffer contains an empty string for no reason is certainly an interesting decision. It violates the principle of least surprise though, and leads to Undefined Behavior if the assumption proves unfounded.


            4. I won't try to decipher what your cryptic single-character variables in words() are for. Do everyone (especially yourself) a favor and invest some more into finding good names.



            5. Using strlen() to decide whether a string is empty? That's an $O(n)$ call where a primitive direct check is sufficient:



              if (!*dest) // dest is empty


              Most optimizing compilers in hosted mode will succeed in lowering it to the above, but why write that much more and rely on it?



            6. Actually, check for zero beforehand instead. No need to do so after failing to put it into words some other way.


            7. Either your example code violates the contract of words(), or words is buggy. I suggest fixing words() to not assume the buffer is pre-filled with an empty string.


            8. Consider merging multiple outputs into one request. Don't worry, due to adjacent string-literals being concatenated by the compiler, that need not result in one humungous string-literal.






            share|improve this answer






















            • To not violate the principle of least surprise, should the code simply overwrite the already existent data in the user-supplied buffer? Or should it indicate some kind of error in that case?
              – hjkl
              Aug 20 at 3:42






            • 1




              Re: !strlen(dest). A good compiler uses analyze-ability of common std functions like strlen() to emit the same code as for !*dest. Still, I would also recommend if (!*dest) or the like if (*dest == '')
              – chux
              Aug 20 at 3:45










            • @chux No doubt many good compilers do so. Still, why rely on having a sufficiently clever compiler to fix needlessly convoluted code in the first place...
              – Deduplicator
              Aug 20 at 4:17






            • 2




              I strongly disagree with 1. The days of 80-char screens is long gone. Most of us do programming work on 26-28-30" screens and this gives us plenty of horizontal room. And even if not, having a definition that will be visited once in a blue moon simply doesn't justify it. I'd never slice such an initial declaration into several lines even if it takes up more than several screen widths. Of course, if you print or copy to places like SO, this is a small nuisance that you have to solve. But it doesn't warrant changing your own habits regarding your own code.
              – Gábor
              Aug 20 at 10:43






            • 1




              @Gábor "The days of 80-char screens is long gone." . Hmm Stack Exchange here uses about a 90 character width. With an auto-formatter, setting that line width to match the code review presentation width is then easy to perform and would have made review easier. Code that does not present well after an auto formatter is higher maintenance. As with such style issues (line width, braces, spacing, etc.) , code should adhere to the group's coding standard vs a personal preference.
              – chux
              Aug 20 at 12:14














            up vote
            10
            down vote













            1. Keep your line-length under control. Horizontal scrolling is death on readability.



            2. strprep() is extremely inefficient, and even assuming the destination is big enough, you don't check whether allocation of your needless temporary buffer succeeds. Better to fix that:



              char *strprep(const char *prefix, char *dest) 
              size_t prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
              memmove(dest + prefix_len, dest, strlen(dest) + 1);
              memcpy(dest, prefix, prefix_len);
              return dest;



            3. Assuming a user-supplied Buffer contains an empty string for no reason is certainly an interesting decision. It violates the principle of least surprise though, and leads to Undefined Behavior if the assumption proves unfounded.


            4. I won't try to decipher what your cryptic single-character variables in words() are for. Do everyone (especially yourself) a favor and invest some more into finding good names.



            5. Using strlen() to decide whether a string is empty? That's an $O(n)$ call where a primitive direct check is sufficient:



              if (!*dest) // dest is empty


              Most optimizing compilers in hosted mode will succeed in lowering it to the above, but why write that much more and rely on it?



            6. Actually, check for zero beforehand instead. No need to do so after failing to put it into words some other way.


            7. Either your example code violates the contract of words(), or words is buggy. I suggest fixing words() to not assume the buffer is pre-filled with an empty string.


            8. Consider merging multiple outputs into one request. Don't worry, due to adjacent string-literals being concatenated by the compiler, that need not result in one humungous string-literal.






            share|improve this answer






















            • To not violate the principle of least surprise, should the code simply overwrite the already existent data in the user-supplied buffer? Or should it indicate some kind of error in that case?
              – hjkl
              Aug 20 at 3:42






            • 1




              Re: !strlen(dest). A good compiler uses analyze-ability of common std functions like strlen() to emit the same code as for !*dest. Still, I would also recommend if (!*dest) or the like if (*dest == '')
              – chux
              Aug 20 at 3:45










            • @chux No doubt many good compilers do so. Still, why rely on having a sufficiently clever compiler to fix needlessly convoluted code in the first place...
              – Deduplicator
              Aug 20 at 4:17






            • 2




              I strongly disagree with 1. The days of 80-char screens is long gone. Most of us do programming work on 26-28-30" screens and this gives us plenty of horizontal room. And even if not, having a definition that will be visited once in a blue moon simply doesn't justify it. I'd never slice such an initial declaration into several lines even if it takes up more than several screen widths. Of course, if you print or copy to places like SO, this is a small nuisance that you have to solve. But it doesn't warrant changing your own habits regarding your own code.
              – Gábor
              Aug 20 at 10:43






            • 1




              @Gábor "The days of 80-char screens is long gone." . Hmm Stack Exchange here uses about a 90 character width. With an auto-formatter, setting that line width to match the code review presentation width is then easy to perform and would have made review easier. Code that does not present well after an auto formatter is higher maintenance. As with such style issues (line width, braces, spacing, etc.) , code should adhere to the group's coding standard vs a personal preference.
              – chux
              Aug 20 at 12:14












            up vote
            10
            down vote










            up vote
            10
            down vote









            1. Keep your line-length under control. Horizontal scrolling is death on readability.



            2. strprep() is extremely inefficient, and even assuming the destination is big enough, you don't check whether allocation of your needless temporary buffer succeeds. Better to fix that:



              char *strprep(const char *prefix, char *dest) 
              size_t prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
              memmove(dest + prefix_len, dest, strlen(dest) + 1);
              memcpy(dest, prefix, prefix_len);
              return dest;



            3. Assuming a user-supplied Buffer contains an empty string for no reason is certainly an interesting decision. It violates the principle of least surprise though, and leads to Undefined Behavior if the assumption proves unfounded.


            4. I won't try to decipher what your cryptic single-character variables in words() are for. Do everyone (especially yourself) a favor and invest some more into finding good names.



            5. Using strlen() to decide whether a string is empty? That's an $O(n)$ call where a primitive direct check is sufficient:



              if (!*dest) // dest is empty


              Most optimizing compilers in hosted mode will succeed in lowering it to the above, but why write that much more and rely on it?



            6. Actually, check for zero beforehand instead. No need to do so after failing to put it into words some other way.


            7. Either your example code violates the contract of words(), or words is buggy. I suggest fixing words() to not assume the buffer is pre-filled with an empty string.


            8. Consider merging multiple outputs into one request. Don't worry, due to adjacent string-literals being concatenated by the compiler, that need not result in one humungous string-literal.






            share|improve this answer














            1. Keep your line-length under control. Horizontal scrolling is death on readability.



            2. strprep() is extremely inefficient, and even assuming the destination is big enough, you don't check whether allocation of your needless temporary buffer succeeds. Better to fix that:



              char *strprep(const char *prefix, char *dest) 
              size_t prefix_len = strlen(prefix);
              memmove(dest + prefix_len, dest, strlen(dest) + 1);
              memcpy(dest, prefix, prefix_len);
              return dest;



            3. Assuming a user-supplied Buffer contains an empty string for no reason is certainly an interesting decision. It violates the principle of least surprise though, and leads to Undefined Behavior if the assumption proves unfounded.


            4. I won't try to decipher what your cryptic single-character variables in words() are for. Do everyone (especially yourself) a favor and invest some more into finding good names.



            5. Using strlen() to decide whether a string is empty? That's an $O(n)$ call where a primitive direct check is sufficient:



              if (!*dest) // dest is empty


              Most optimizing compilers in hosted mode will succeed in lowering it to the above, but why write that much more and rely on it?



            6. Actually, check for zero beforehand instead. No need to do so after failing to put it into words some other way.


            7. Either your example code violates the contract of words(), or words is buggy. I suggest fixing words() to not assume the buffer is pre-filled with an empty string.


            8. Consider merging multiple outputs into one request. Don't worry, due to adjacent string-literals being concatenated by the compiler, that need not result in one humungous string-literal.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Aug 20 at 11:18

























            answered Aug 20 at 2:30









            Deduplicator

            10.4k1849




            10.4k1849











            • To not violate the principle of least surprise, should the code simply overwrite the already existent data in the user-supplied buffer? Or should it indicate some kind of error in that case?
              – hjkl
              Aug 20 at 3:42






            • 1




              Re: !strlen(dest). A good compiler uses analyze-ability of common std functions like strlen() to emit the same code as for !*dest. Still, I would also recommend if (!*dest) or the like if (*dest == '')
              – chux
              Aug 20 at 3:45










            • @chux No doubt many good compilers do so. Still, why rely on having a sufficiently clever compiler to fix needlessly convoluted code in the first place...
              – Deduplicator
              Aug 20 at 4:17






            • 2




              I strongly disagree with 1. The days of 80-char screens is long gone. Most of us do programming work on 26-28-30" screens and this gives us plenty of horizontal room. And even if not, having a definition that will be visited once in a blue moon simply doesn't justify it. I'd never slice such an initial declaration into several lines even if it takes up more than several screen widths. Of course, if you print or copy to places like SO, this is a small nuisance that you have to solve. But it doesn't warrant changing your own habits regarding your own code.
              – Gábor
              Aug 20 at 10:43






            • 1




              @Gábor "The days of 80-char screens is long gone." . Hmm Stack Exchange here uses about a 90 character width. With an auto-formatter, setting that line width to match the code review presentation width is then easy to perform and would have made review easier. Code that does not present well after an auto formatter is higher maintenance. As with such style issues (line width, braces, spacing, etc.) , code should adhere to the group's coding standard vs a personal preference.
              – chux
              Aug 20 at 12:14
















            • To not violate the principle of least surprise, should the code simply overwrite the already existent data in the user-supplied buffer? Or should it indicate some kind of error in that case?
              – hjkl
              Aug 20 at 3:42






            • 1




              Re: !strlen(dest). A good compiler uses analyze-ability of common std functions like strlen() to emit the same code as for !*dest. Still, I would also recommend if (!*dest) or the like if (*dest == '')
              – chux
              Aug 20 at 3:45










            • @chux No doubt many good compilers do so. Still, why rely on having a sufficiently clever compiler to fix needlessly convoluted code in the first place...
              – Deduplicator
              Aug 20 at 4:17






            • 2




              I strongly disagree with 1. The days of 80-char screens is long gone. Most of us do programming work on 26-28-30" screens and this gives us plenty of horizontal room. And even if not, having a definition that will be visited once in a blue moon simply doesn't justify it. I'd never slice such an initial declaration into several lines even if it takes up more than several screen widths. Of course, if you print or copy to places like SO, this is a small nuisance that you have to solve. But it doesn't warrant changing your own habits regarding your own code.
              – Gábor
              Aug 20 at 10:43






            • 1




              @Gábor "The days of 80-char screens is long gone." . Hmm Stack Exchange here uses about a 90 character width. With an auto-formatter, setting that line width to match the code review presentation width is then easy to perform and would have made review easier. Code that does not present well after an auto formatter is higher maintenance. As with such style issues (line width, braces, spacing, etc.) , code should adhere to the group's coding standard vs a personal preference.
              – chux
              Aug 20 at 12:14















            To not violate the principle of least surprise, should the code simply overwrite the already existent data in the user-supplied buffer? Or should it indicate some kind of error in that case?
            – hjkl
            Aug 20 at 3:42




            To not violate the principle of least surprise, should the code simply overwrite the already existent data in the user-supplied buffer? Or should it indicate some kind of error in that case?
            – hjkl
            Aug 20 at 3:42




            1




            1




            Re: !strlen(dest). A good compiler uses analyze-ability of common std functions like strlen() to emit the same code as for !*dest. Still, I would also recommend if (!*dest) or the like if (*dest == '')
            – chux
            Aug 20 at 3:45




            Re: !strlen(dest). A good compiler uses analyze-ability of common std functions like strlen() to emit the same code as for !*dest. Still, I would also recommend if (!*dest) or the like if (*dest == '')
            – chux
            Aug 20 at 3:45












            @chux No doubt many good compilers do so. Still, why rely on having a sufficiently clever compiler to fix needlessly convoluted code in the first place...
            – Deduplicator
            Aug 20 at 4:17




            @chux No doubt many good compilers do so. Still, why rely on having a sufficiently clever compiler to fix needlessly convoluted code in the first place...
            – Deduplicator
            Aug 20 at 4:17




            2




            2




            I strongly disagree with 1. The days of 80-char screens is long gone. Most of us do programming work on 26-28-30" screens and this gives us plenty of horizontal room. And even if not, having a definition that will be visited once in a blue moon simply doesn't justify it. I'd never slice such an initial declaration into several lines even if it takes up more than several screen widths. Of course, if you print or copy to places like SO, this is a small nuisance that you have to solve. But it doesn't warrant changing your own habits regarding your own code.
            – Gábor
            Aug 20 at 10:43




            I strongly disagree with 1. The days of 80-char screens is long gone. Most of us do programming work on 26-28-30" screens and this gives us plenty of horizontal room. And even if not, having a definition that will be visited once in a blue moon simply doesn't justify it. I'd never slice such an initial declaration into several lines even if it takes up more than several screen widths. Of course, if you print or copy to places like SO, this is a small nuisance that you have to solve. But it doesn't warrant changing your own habits regarding your own code.
            – Gábor
            Aug 20 at 10:43




            1




            1




            @Gábor "The days of 80-char screens is long gone." . Hmm Stack Exchange here uses about a 90 character width. With an auto-formatter, setting that line width to match the code review presentation width is then easy to perform and would have made review easier. Code that does not present well after an auto formatter is higher maintenance. As with such style issues (line width, braces, spacing, etc.) , code should adhere to the group's coding standard vs a personal preference.
            – chux
            Aug 20 at 12:14




            @Gábor "The days of 80-char screens is long gone." . Hmm Stack Exchange here uses about a 90 character width. With an auto-formatter, setting that line width to match the code review presentation width is then easy to perform and would have made review easier. Code that does not present well after an auto formatter is higher maintenance. As with such style issues (line width, braces, spacing, etc.) , code should adhere to the group's coding standard vs a personal preference.
            – chux
            Aug 20 at 12:14










            up vote
            3
            down vote













            Consider what



            char buf[256];
            puts(words(0, buf));


            with words() below.



            strlen(dest) would be undefined behavior as buf was never initialized and so a null character may not be found with strlen(dest) before searching outside buf bounds.



            while(n)
            ...
            if(!strlen(dest))

            strcpy(dest, "zero");






            share|improve this answer




















            • If !*dest is used to check if dest is an empty string instead of !strlen(dest), could the fact that buf is never initialized still result in undefined behavior?
              – hjkl
              Aug 20 at 4:05






            • 2




              @hjkl Treating uninitialized memory as a string or anything else is always a problem.
              – Deduplicator
              Aug 20 at 4:10










            • @hjkl "could the fact that buf is never initialized still result in undefined behavior?" --> Yes, reading uninitialized memory for any reason is a problem. On 2nd thought it might be implementation defined behavior, and there are some special exceptions for reading unsigned char, but it is not a !*dest versus !strlen(dest) concern, both are problematic in OP's code.
              – chux
              Aug 20 at 4:55















            up vote
            3
            down vote













            Consider what



            char buf[256];
            puts(words(0, buf));


            with words() below.



            strlen(dest) would be undefined behavior as buf was never initialized and so a null character may not be found with strlen(dest) before searching outside buf bounds.



            while(n)
            ...
            if(!strlen(dest))

            strcpy(dest, "zero");






            share|improve this answer




















            • If !*dest is used to check if dest is an empty string instead of !strlen(dest), could the fact that buf is never initialized still result in undefined behavior?
              – hjkl
              Aug 20 at 4:05






            • 2




              @hjkl Treating uninitialized memory as a string or anything else is always a problem.
              – Deduplicator
              Aug 20 at 4:10










            • @hjkl "could the fact that buf is never initialized still result in undefined behavior?" --> Yes, reading uninitialized memory for any reason is a problem. On 2nd thought it might be implementation defined behavior, and there are some special exceptions for reading unsigned char, but it is not a !*dest versus !strlen(dest) concern, both are problematic in OP's code.
              – chux
              Aug 20 at 4:55













            up vote
            3
            down vote










            up vote
            3
            down vote









            Consider what



            char buf[256];
            puts(words(0, buf));


            with words() below.



            strlen(dest) would be undefined behavior as buf was never initialized and so a null character may not be found with strlen(dest) before searching outside buf bounds.



            while(n)
            ...
            if(!strlen(dest))

            strcpy(dest, "zero");






            share|improve this answer












            Consider what



            char buf[256];
            puts(words(0, buf));


            with words() below.



            strlen(dest) would be undefined behavior as buf was never initialized and so a null character may not be found with strlen(dest) before searching outside buf bounds.



            while(n)
            ...
            if(!strlen(dest))

            strcpy(dest, "zero");







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Aug 20 at 3:50









            chux

            11.6k11339




            11.6k11339











            • If !*dest is used to check if dest is an empty string instead of !strlen(dest), could the fact that buf is never initialized still result in undefined behavior?
              – hjkl
              Aug 20 at 4:05






            • 2




              @hjkl Treating uninitialized memory as a string or anything else is always a problem.
              – Deduplicator
              Aug 20 at 4:10










            • @hjkl "could the fact that buf is never initialized still result in undefined behavior?" --> Yes, reading uninitialized memory for any reason is a problem. On 2nd thought it might be implementation defined behavior, and there are some special exceptions for reading unsigned char, but it is not a !*dest versus !strlen(dest) concern, both are problematic in OP's code.
              – chux
              Aug 20 at 4:55

















            • If !*dest is used to check if dest is an empty string instead of !strlen(dest), could the fact that buf is never initialized still result in undefined behavior?
              – hjkl
              Aug 20 at 4:05






            • 2




              @hjkl Treating uninitialized memory as a string or anything else is always a problem.
              – Deduplicator
              Aug 20 at 4:10










            • @hjkl "could the fact that buf is never initialized still result in undefined behavior?" --> Yes, reading uninitialized memory for any reason is a problem. On 2nd thought it might be implementation defined behavior, and there are some special exceptions for reading unsigned char, but it is not a !*dest versus !strlen(dest) concern, both are problematic in OP's code.
              – chux
              Aug 20 at 4:55
















            If !*dest is used to check if dest is an empty string instead of !strlen(dest), could the fact that buf is never initialized still result in undefined behavior?
            – hjkl
            Aug 20 at 4:05




            If !*dest is used to check if dest is an empty string instead of !strlen(dest), could the fact that buf is never initialized still result in undefined behavior?
            – hjkl
            Aug 20 at 4:05




            2




            2




            @hjkl Treating uninitialized memory as a string or anything else is always a problem.
            – Deduplicator
            Aug 20 at 4:10




            @hjkl Treating uninitialized memory as a string or anything else is always a problem.
            – Deduplicator
            Aug 20 at 4:10












            @hjkl "could the fact that buf is never initialized still result in undefined behavior?" --> Yes, reading uninitialized memory for any reason is a problem. On 2nd thought it might be implementation defined behavior, and there are some special exceptions for reading unsigned char, but it is not a !*dest versus !strlen(dest) concern, both are problematic in OP's code.
            – chux
            Aug 20 at 4:55





            @hjkl "could the fact that buf is never initialized still result in undefined behavior?" --> Yes, reading uninitialized memory for any reason is a problem. On 2nd thought it might be implementation defined behavior, and there are some special exceptions for reading unsigned char, but it is not a !*dest versus !strlen(dest) concern, both are problematic in OP's code.
            – chux
            Aug 20 at 4:55


















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f202007%2fintegers-to-english-words-in-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Bahrain

            Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay