Beating C with one line of Brainfuck

Post by zabzonk » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 9:09 PM UTC

NilsIRL wrote: post #6

Generated C: #include char mem[30000] = { }; #define OUTPUTS 0 char outputs[OUTPUTS] = { }; int main() { char* ptr = mem + 0; fwrite(outputs, sizeof(char), OUTPUTS, stdout); ptr[2] = getchar(); ++ptr[2]; while (ptr[2]) { ptr[2] -= 11; while (ptr[2]) { ptr[2] -= 22; while (ptr[2]) { ++ptr[3]; --ptr[1]; while (ptr[1]) { ++*ptr; ++ptr[1]; } ptr[2] = 0; } ptr[2] = 0; } ptr[1] = 0; ptr[1] += ptr[3] * 1; ptr[3] = 0; ptr[2]…

    #define OUTPUTS 0
    char outputs[OUTPUTS] = {  };

Post by nipxx » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 9:14 PM UTC

Post by lilyball » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 9:39 PM UTC

return_0e wrote: post #8

klyrs wrote: post #3

Marvelous. Anybody got an optimizing malbolge compiler?

Not an optimising one (yet) but a safe implementation of a malbolge interpreter written in Rust, which can run malbolge programs. Just for fun. https://github.com/return/malbolge

Post by jacquesm » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 9:56 PM UTC

zabzonk wrote: post #11

NilsIRL wrote: post #6

Generated C: #include char mem[30000] = { }; #define OUTPUTS 0 char outputs[OUTPUTS] = { }; int main() { char* ptr = mem + 0; fwrite(outputs, sizeof(char), OUTPUTS, stdout); ptr[2] = getchar(); ++ptr[2]; while (ptr[2]) { ptr[2] -= 11; while (ptr[2]) { ptr[2] -= 22; while (ptr[2]) { ++ptr[3]; --ptr[1]; while (ptr[1]) { ++*ptr; ++ptr[1]; } ptr[2] = 0; } ptr[2] = 0; } ptr[1] = 0; ptr[1] += ptr[3] * 1; ptr[3] = 0; ptr[2]…

Note that: #define OUTPUTS 0 char outputs[OUTPUTS] = { }; is not valid C (or C++) - zero length arrays are not a thing in either language,

  (base) jam@jam-XPS-8500:~/svn/src/music/mp3tomidi$ cc -c -Wall x.c
  (base) jam@jam-XPS-8500:~/svn/src/music/mp3tomidi$ cat x.c

  #define OUTPUTS 0
  char outputs[OUTPUTS] = {  };

Post by zabzonk » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 10:02 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #17

zabzonk wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that: #define OUTPUTS 0 char outputs[OUTPUTS] = { }; is not valid C (or C++) - zero length arrays are not a thing in either language,

(base) jam@jam-XPS-8500:~/svn/src/music/mp3tomidi$ cc -c -Wall x.c (base) jam@jam-XPS-8500:~/svn/src/music/mp3tomidi$ cat x.c #define OUTPUTS 0 char outputs[OUTPUTS] = { }; Looks like you're wrong about that; at least for GNU C. It's not official C but if it works and generates no warnings it will be used too. Long HN thread about this subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11674374 Zero length arrays are one…

     [neilb@Miranda temp]$ gcc -Wall -Wextra -pedantic a.c                  
      a.c:2:6: warning: ISO C forbids zero-size array   'outputs' [-Wpedantic] 
 char outputs[OUTPUTS] = {  };