mirror/ioccc
1
0 Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge pull request #199 from xexyl/sugar

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Landon Curt Noll authored and GitHub committed 2025-08-18 10:56:29 -07:00
2 parents f55ef379e9 9ea03f142d
commit 1038051009
16 files changed
+416 -206
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

No files matched your search

2020/ferguson1/chocolate-cake.html
+7 -4
View File
@@ -516,9 +516,6 @@ bit. This is likely the case if the cake comes out a little bit dry.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>REMOVE THE CAKE FROM THE PANS <em>2 MINUTES AFTER REMOVING FROM OVEN</em></strong> and
then allow to <strong>FULLY COOL <em>ON RACKS!</em></strong> The important point is to <strong>MAKE SURE
THAT THEY <em>DON’T OVERCOOK</em></strong>.</p></li>
<li><p>When the recipe was first written they sold powdered sugar in a box; now
it’s confectionery sugar in a bag. My mum experimented with the amount and
found that 4 cups seems about right.</p></li>
<li><p><strong>USE <em>WHOLE MILK!</em></strong> Don’t try skim milk or whatever per cent of fat milk you
have.</p></li>
<li><p>Use <strong>ONLY <em>PURE</em> VANILLA EXTRACT!</strong> <strong>DO <em>NOT USE IMITATION VANILLA!</em></strong> Not
@@ -595,12 +592,18 @@ following this rule will lead to a worse outcome. As I recall the icing was
quite a bit worse (but still chocolaty at least) the times we had imitation
vanilla (simply because we couldn’t get pure vanilla at the time we needed
it). Just don’t do it.</p></li>
<li><p>When the recipe was first written they sold powdered sugar in a box; now
it’s confectionery sugar in a bag. My mum experimented with the amount and
found that 4 cups seems about right. This can be adjusted to your taste.</p></li>
<li><p>If you have leftover icing after icing the cake, for next time, it might be
that you didn’t put as much between the layers as we do. Of course you could
put it elsewhere if you wish to.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2 id="icing-directions">Icing Directions</h2>
<ol type="1">
<li><p>Combine <strong>4 OZ UNSWEETENED CHOCOLATE</strong> and <strong>1/2 CUP <em>MARGARINE (NOT
BUTTER!)</em></strong> in pan. Melt and remove from heat. <strong>DO NOT LET IT GET SOLID!</strong></p></li>
<li><p>Combine <strong>3 1/4 CUPS POWDERED SUGAR</strong>, <strong>1/2 CUPS WHOLE MILK</strong> and <strong>2 TSP
<li><p>Combine <strong>4 CUPS POWDERED SUGAR</strong>, <strong>1/2 CUPS WHOLE MILK</strong> and <strong>2 TSP
</strong><em>PURE</em> VANILLA EXTRACT (<em>NOT IMITATION VANILLA!</em>)** into a bowl. <strong>STIR
UNTIL SMOOTH</strong>.</p></li>
<li><p>Add chocolate mixture.</p></li>
2020/ferguson1/chocolate-cake.md
+8 -5
View File
@@ -83,10 +83,6 @@ RECIPE NOTES BECAUSE THEY'RE _EXTREMELY IMPORTANT!_**
then allow to **FULLY COOL _ON RACKS!_** The important point is to **MAKE SURE
THAT THEY _DON'T OVERCOOK_**.
* When the recipe was first written they sold powdered sugar in a box; now
it's confectionery sugar in a bag. My mum experimented with the amount and
found that 4 cups seems about right.
* **USE _WHOLE MILK!_** Don't try skim milk or whatever per cent of fat milk you
have.
@@ -187,6 +183,13 @@ bowl can sit in.
vanilla (simply because we couldn't get pure vanilla at the time we needed
it). Just don't do it.
* When the recipe was first written they sold powdered sugar in a box; now
it's confectionery sugar in a bag. My mum experimented with the amount and
found that 4 cups seems about right. This can be adjusted to your taste.
* If you have leftover icing after icing the cake, for next time, it might be
that you didn't put as much between the layers as we do. Of course you could
put it elsewhere if you wish to.
## Icing Directions
@@ -195,7 +198,7 @@ bowl can sit in.
1. Combine **4 OZ UNSWEETENED CHOCOLATE** and **1/2 CUP *MARGARINE (NOT
BUTTER!)*** in pan. Melt and remove from heat. **DO NOT LET IT GET SOLID!**
2. Combine **3 1/4 CUPS POWDERED SUGAR**, **1/2 CUPS WHOLE MILK** and **2 TSP
2. Combine **4 CUPS POWDERED SUGAR**, **1/2 CUPS WHOLE MILK** and **2 TSP
***PURE* VANILLA EXTRACT (_NOT IMITATION VANILLA!_)** into a bowl. **STIR
UNTIL SMOOTH**.
2024/ferguson1/.entry.json
+1 -1
View File
@@ -123,7 +123,7 @@
"OK_to_edit" : true,
"display_as" : "text",
"display_via_github" : true,
"entry_text" : "text file showing only the gotos in the entry code"
"entry_text" : "text file showing only gotos in the entry code pre cpp"
},
{
"file_path" : "jumps.txt",
2024/ferguson1/.gitignore
+1
View File
@@ -24,4 +24,5 @@ prog.alt2.scrnshot
prog.alt.asc
prog.alt.scrnshot
prog.asc
prog.gotos
prog.scrnshot
2024/ferguson1/Makefile
+8
View File
@@ -229,6 +229,14 @@ ${PROG}.scrnshot: ${PROG}.c
${MAKE} padding
${CC} ${CFLAGS} -DDATA='"data.scrnshot"' ${PROG}.c -o $@ ${LDFLAGS}
# for testing purposes of prog.gotos.c - part of the enhanced litmus test
${PROG}.gotos: ${PROG}.gotos.c
${MAKE} padding
${CC} ${CFLAGS} -DDATA='"data"' ${PROG}.gotos.c -o $@ ${LDFLAGS}
# this tool creates the data files (emoji and ASCII only versions).
#
# The warnings disabled are unfortunate. One is actually an extra sanity check
2024/ferguson1/README.md
+31 -27
View File
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ YouTube show for this entry:
The author provided two alt versions: one submitted with more events, though not
many more, along with a few other functional differences, and after winning, the
prog.c was made the prog.alt2.c code and the prog.c was made the complete
version (149 `goto`s up from 134) that was not made prog.c during submission for
version (152 `goto`s up from 134) that was not made prog.c during submission for
practical reasons.
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ practical reasons.
## Judges' remarks:
You will have to go to "Fun-Damentals" to understand the logic flow of this
game. While the code might goto as many as 149 times to travel from `main()` to
game. While the code might goto as many as 152 times to travel from `main()` to
a successful `exit(666)` you may have a devil of a time trying to figure out how
this program actually does what it does as it jumps hundreds if not thousands of
times.
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ finish and not counting macros but counting all function calls (not libc
functions just the few functions in prog.c), there were a total of **1416** (!)
line jumps. Skipping prog.c function calls and it was still **1131** jumps! The
prog.c, if you remove `#include`s, blank lines, lines with just a brace and
lines that have only variables, **only has 58 (!) lines of code**. A very tiny
lines that have only variables, **only has 55 (!) lines of code**. A very tiny
fraction of the time a line might be repeated in a row ONCE but that does not
really matter, as it is still technically a jump.
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ depend on what you're doing):
/heaven\|goto\|666\|hell
```
Read it and <del>weep</del> and scream (or curse :-) )!
Read it and <del>weep</del> scream (or curse :-) )!
**NOTE**: I actually submitted two versions, one encrypted (even emojis); any
document mentioning encryption is left <del>for personal reasons</del> out of
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ extended power cut or something else goes wrong.
<div id="devil">
### A Pact With the Devil On the Oregon Trail (...and his <del>134</del> 149 regrets of goto)
### A Pact With the Devil On the Oregon Trail (...and his <del>134</del> 152 regrets of goto)
</div>
The _Go To Hell In A Handcart Travel Company_ **PROUDLY** welcomes all sinners to
@@ -192,13 +192,17 @@ things I have done - and some are really quite unique and cool, or at least I
think they are unique (I have never seen these things before nor have I even
seen any suggestion of them before, one because it's absolutely contrary to how
it works in C, namely near 200 NUL terminated `char *`s in a single flat `char
*` - no, not an array of `char *[]`).
*` - no, not an array of `char *[]` and not a `char **`!).
See [obfuscation.html](obfuscation.html) and my [concluding
remarks](#conclusions) for
more details on just how many `goto`s I have but beware of monsters. But be careful
if you have a heart condition. And if you're a computer scientist make sure
you're not at risk of stroke.
you're not at risk of stroke. The [obfuscation.html](obfuscation.html) file has
a [litmus test](obfuscation.html#litmus) I devised to make sure everything is
working right, although you have to know the program code well in order to
really be sure of it, especially as there are some things that seem like flow
control errors but are intentional.
The [obfuscation.html](obfuscation.html) file discusses those other cool things as
well of course, and they might be briefly brought up in my concluding remarks as
@@ -2501,12 +2505,12 @@ really does not seem to be dead (it's quite sneaky).
I could be wrong on whether this is one the compiler missed though: it's hard to
follow all the `goto`s. As you find out in [obfuscation.html](obfuscation.html) it's
149 after pre-processing! The second alt code is what I originally submitted as
prog.c but after winning I made the more complete (149 gotos post cpp, 131 prior
152 after pre-processing! The second alt code is what I originally submitted as
prog.c but after winning I made the more complete (152 gotos post cpp, 134 prior
to cpp) version (that was not submitted for practical reasons) the prog.c.
Nonetheless 134 is already way too many. 149 is much worse. Even 116 which was
the original prog.c before cpp is too many; that's 7 more than the 1978 BASIC
game (!). But it's actually 131 which is 22 more.
Nonetheless 109, what the 1978 BASIC game had, is already way too many, but that
at least has the excuse of being in BASIC. Being in a smaller program and in C,
having 134/152 `goto`s is far worse.
Yes I might be mad. But then again I might just be the Devil. Who knows? What I
do know is code that is meant to be reached is reached! Yes I've played it many
@@ -3072,11 +3076,11 @@ what this is. And even then it shouldn't be easy to follow the code, for reasons
I mentioned in [obfuscation.html](obfuscation.html) (and some briefly below).
In general I think it's extremely hard to follow the flow of this program due to
the abuse of <del>116</del> 131 `goto`s, more than the BASIC game.
<del>134</del> 149 when pre-processed. But
let's be honest, or 131 for a small C program is too many but to be seven more
than the larger BASIC program? That is hard to fathom. Not that <del>116</del>
131/149 is not too many for larger programs...or one goto, for that matter.
the abuse of <del>116</del> 134 `goto`s, more than the BASIC game.
<del>134</del> 152 when pre-processed. But let's be honest, 134 for a small C
program is too many but to be 25 (or 43 pre-processed) more than the larger
BASIC program? That is hard to fathom. Not that <del>116</del> 131/149 is not
too many for larger programs...or one goto, for that matter.
As noted elsewhere, I originally submitted a slightly less goto complete
version, with 116/134 gotos, before/after the cpp, which was due to practical
@@ -3203,7 +3207,7 @@ I probably wouldn't have written code that looks illegal like the
if not most contexts it IS illegal). The bastardised Duff's device I would not
do. I would not put the entire function in a switch.
But above all I would not have used <del>116</del> 131 (or <del>134</del> 149)
But above all I would not have used <del>116</del> 134 (or <del>134</del> 152)
`goto`s. Or ten. Or five. Or even one. Better to let code generators like
flex/bison take the crown. I have dethroned them though (at least from what I
have seen before) - by a huge amount. But perhaps
@@ -3278,7 +3282,7 @@ mean many `goto`s.
There are so many `goto`s that to try and move code to add more `goto`s is
basically pointless, unless as a joke. In this program it would really not do
anything. I essentially ran out of code to move. Even if I had more though,
isn't <del>134</del> 149 enough, especially in a program that, counting spaces,
isn't <del>134</del> 152 enough, especially in a program that, counting spaces,
including unnecessary spaces to add to the size, is only 4666 bytes? It would be
smaller except to stay on theme. Doing more would no longer be funny. Enough is
enough. Or at least I hope. Okay...actually I take that back. More would be
@@ -3336,9 +3340,9 @@ of **1416** (!) changes, counting function calls, and **1131** (!) excluding
function calls. Macros are not counted of course.
This program, if you remove blank lines and lines with just a brace,
`#include`s and only variables, has a mere 58 (!) lines.
`#include`s and only variables, has a mere 55 (!) lines.
A program that has only 58 lines of code that jumps 1416 (counting functions) or
A program that has only 55 lines of code that jumps 1416 (counting functions) or
1131 (just in main()) times is astonishing. Of course that's not the
only technique but the title of the award and the judges' remarks are rather
fitting as it is diabolical to follow this code (and the theme of the game fits
@@ -3359,7 +3363,7 @@ It is not about not trying. But even IF he WAS right, he
sure as hell is wrong NOW. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to try and debug
my program - or maintain it. Or write it.
It would have been SO MUCH EASIER if I did not use <del>134</del> 149 `goto`s.
It would have been SO MUCH EASIER if I did not use <del>134</del> 152 `goto`s.
Actually, even a tiny portion of that would make it harder. Nobody, whether
they're in their right mind or not, would WANT to MAINTAIN this, or something
even close to it. Feel free to pass on judgement to me. I welcome it! You have
@@ -3499,8 +3503,8 @@ Anyway, I am reminded of Apple's **SINGLE** misplaced `goto` that caused a
That's all it takes: **JUST ONE `goto` led to a CVE**!
It is ironic, perfect and hilarious that it was `goto fail;` as it was actually
a failure in using `goto`! My code has <del>134</del> 149 (with the cpp,
<del>116</del> 131 without). That is obscene. I did not fail. At all.
a failure in using `goto`! My code has 134/152 (pre-pre-processed,
pre-processed). That is obscene. I did not fail. At all.
On the contrary I have made a point. Okay, that is not the only reason I did it
but when I got started I couldn't help it...I thought it was (and still do think
@@ -3544,8 +3548,8 @@ In BASIC and asm and some other languages jumps are a core part of the language.
And those languages can be harder to maintain partly because of jumps. C is not
one of those languages. Or it wasn't until now.
Yes, yes...I know, I **KNOW** I put in <del>116</del> 131 `goto`s with
<del>134</del> 149 when pre-processed and that is probably more extreme than any
Yes, yes...I know, I **KNOW** I put in <del>116</del> 134 `goto`s with
<del>134</del> 152 when pre-processed and that is probably more extreme than any
other C program, especially in such a small program (and I REALLY hope I'm right
there!). But **this does NOT matter**! Even if one or two were not harmful (but
they are) it's jumping down a rabbit hole that can very easily get deeper and
@@ -3601,7 +3605,7 @@ recognise what I mean - and yes it's in the game).
On a lighter note (or maybe this is darker?): did you know that every time a
`goto` is used an angel (whatever you consider an angel) **DIES** and goes
straight to HELL? You don't really want that do you? I didn't think so. Yes I
killed <del>134</del> 149 angels. YES I condemned <del>134</del> 149 angels to
killed <del>134</del> 152 angels. YES I condemned <del>134</del> 152 angels to
eternal torment. I **HAD** to. I don't regret it - but you should, if you
**ever** write something like this outside the IOCCC. In fact you should regret
a single <del>goto</del> angel dying. Even if they did not go straight to hell
2024/ferguson1/data.src
BIN
View File
Binary file not shown.
2024/ferguson1/deobfuscation.html
+2 -2
View File
@@ -503,8 +503,8 @@ flood of the message each turn).</li>
<li>h: I believe this is if you were injured and could afford the doctor.</li>
<li>c: hit blizzard.</li>
<li>X: passed South Pass.</li>
<li>i: been poisoned; you will be dead shortly (sorry - that’s what happens when
you have a pact with the devil!).</li>
<li>i: about to be strangled to death by the Flying Spaghetti Monster after
indulging in too much spaghetti.</li>
<li>g: how many limbs you’ve had to cut off (surgeon’s cut edition)</li>
<li>t: temporary array for purchasing at forts.</li>
<li>u: temporary unsigned int to iterate through array <code>t</code> (and maybe other
2024/ferguson1/deobfuscation.md
+2 -2
View File
@@ -50,8 +50,8 @@ flood of the message each turn).
- h: I believe this is if you were injured and could afford the doctor.
- c: hit blizzard.
- X: passed South Pass.
- i: been poisoned; you will be dead shortly (sorry - that's what happens when
you have a pact with the devil!).
- i: about to be strangled to death by the Flying Spaghetti Monster after
indulging in too much spaghetti.
- g: how many limbs you've had to cut off (surgeon's cut edition)
- t: temporary array for purchasing at forts.
- u: temporary unsigned int to iterate through array `t` (and maybe other
2024/ferguson1/gotos.c.txt
+4 -1
View File
@@ -92,6 +92,7 @@
goto TT;
goto P;
goto U;
w(i) goto _;
goto QQ;
goto KK;
goto z;
@@ -102,7 +103,9 @@
goto yy;
goto Z;
goto rr;
w(27) I : goto a;
goto _;
w(27) goto _;
goto a;
goto Z;
goto Z;
goto Z;
2024/ferguson1/gotos.png
BIN
View File
Binary file not shown.
Side by Side Swipe Overlay

Before

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 220 KiB

After

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 220 KiB

2024/ferguson1/index.html
+32 -28
View File
@@ -489,7 +489,7 @@ YouTube show for this entry:</p>
<p>The author provided two alt versions: one submitted with more events, though not
many more, along with a few other functional differences, and after winning, the
prog.c was made the prog.alt2.c code and the prog.c was made the complete
version (149 <code>goto</code>s up from 134) that was not made prog.c during submission for
version (152 <code>goto</code>s up from 134) that was not made prog.c during submission for
practical reasons.</p>
<h3 id="alternate-build">Alternate build:</h3>
<pre><code> make alt</code></pre>
@@ -501,7 +501,7 @@ practical reasons.</p>
./prog.alt2 # submitted code with bug fix</code></pre>
<h2 id="judges-remarks">Judges’ remarks:</h2>
<p>You will have to go to “Fun-Damentals” to understand the logic flow of this
game. While the code might goto as many as 149 times to travel from <code>main()</code> to
game. While the code might goto as many as 152 times to travel from <code>main()</code> to
a successful <code>exit(666)</code> you may have a devil of a time trying to figure out how
this program actually does what it does as it jumps hundreds if not thousands of
times.</p>
@@ -519,7 +519,7 @@ finish and not counting macros but counting all function calls (not libc
functions just the few functions in prog.c), there were a total of <strong>1416</strong> (!)
line jumps. Skipping prog.c function calls and it was still <strong>1131</strong> jumps! The
prog.c, if you remove <code>#include</code>s, blank lines, lines with just a brace and
lines that have only variables, <strong>only has 58 (!) lines of code</strong>. A very tiny
lines that have only variables, <strong>only has 55 (!) lines of code</strong>. A very tiny
fraction of the time a line might be repeated in a row ONCE but that does not
really matter, as it is still technically a jump.</p>
</blockquote>
@@ -532,7 +532,7 @@ if your grep has colours enabled (probably easier). This is a nice one to try:</
(hit ESC if you don’t know - if that doesn’t work try hitting it again as it can
depend on what you’re doing):</p>
<pre><code> /heaven\|goto\|666\|hell</code></pre>
<p>Read it and <del>weep</del> and scream (or curse :-) )!</p>
<p>Read it and <del>weep</del> scream (or curse :-) )!</p>
<p><strong>NOTE</strong>: I actually submitted two versions, one encrypted (even emojis); any
document mentioning encryption is left <del>for personal reasons</del> out of
laziness and exhaustion from working on improving the presentation even after it
@@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ can be found <a href="https://ioccc.xexyl.net/2024/oregon/">here</a> or else in
markdown files in the tarball), if anyone is interested, assuming there’s not an
extended power cut or something else goes wrong.</p>
<div id="devil">
<h3 id="a-pact-with-the-devil-on-the-oregon-trail-and-his-134-149-regrets-of-goto">A Pact With the Devil On the Oregon Trail (…and his <del>134</del> 149 regrets of goto)</h3>
<h3 id="a-pact-with-the-devil-on-the-oregon-trail-and-his-134-152-regrets-of-goto">A Pact With the Devil On the Oregon Trail (…and his <del>134</del> 152 regrets of goto)</h3>
</div>
<p>The <em>Go To Hell In A Handcart Travel Company</em> <strong>PROUDLY</strong> welcomes all sinners to
our <strong>GREATEST</strong> destination yet, with:</p>
@@ -607,12 +607,16 @@ have personally never seen anything close to it. But that’s only one of the ma
things I have done - and some are really quite unique and cool, or at least I
think they are unique (I have never seen these things before nor have I even
seen any suggestion of them before, one because it’s absolutely contrary to how
it works in C, namely near 200 NUL terminated <code>char *</code>s in a single flat <code>char *</code> - no, not an array of <code>char *[]</code>).</p>
it works in C, namely near 200 NUL terminated <code>char *</code>s in a single flat <code>char *</code> - no, not an array of <code>char *[]</code> and not a <code>char **</code>!).</p>
<p>See <a href="obfuscation.html">obfuscation.html</a> and my <a href="#conclusions">concluding
remarks</a> for
more details on just how many <code>goto</code>s I have but beware of monsters. But be careful
if you have a heart condition. And if you’re a computer scientist make sure
you’re not at risk of stroke.</p>
you’re not at risk of stroke. The <a href="obfuscation.html">obfuscation.html</a> file has
a <a href="obfuscation.html#litmus">litmus test</a> I devised to make sure everything is
working right, although you have to know the program code well in order to
really be sure of it, especially as there are some things that seem like flow
control errors but are intentional.</p>
<p>The <a href="obfuscation.html">obfuscation.html</a> file discusses those other cool things as
well of course, and they might be briefly brought up in my concluding remarks as
well.</p>
@@ -2484,12 +2488,12 @@ might be one that the compiler does not trigger a dead code warning on. It
really does not seem to be dead (it’s quite sneaky).</p>
<p>I could be wrong on whether this is one the compiler missed though: it’s hard to
follow all the <code>goto</code>s. As you find out in <a href="obfuscation.html">obfuscation.html</a> it’s
149 after pre-processing! The second alt code is what I originally submitted as
prog.c but after winning I made the more complete (149 gotos post cpp, 131 prior
152 after pre-processing! The second alt code is what I originally submitted as
prog.c but after winning I made the more complete (152 gotos post cpp, 134 prior
to cpp) version (that was not submitted for practical reasons) the prog.c.
Nonetheless 134 is already way too many. 149 is much worse. Even 116 which was
the original prog.c before cpp is too many; that’s 7 more than the 1978 BASIC
game (!). But it’s actually 131 which is 22 more.</p>
Nonetheless 109, what the 1978 BASIC game had, is already way too many, but that
at least has the excuse of being in BASIC. Being in a smaller program and in C,
having 134/152 <code>goto</code>s is far worse.</p>
<p>Yes I might be mad. But then again I might just be the Devil. Who knows? What I
do know is code that is meant to be reached is reached! Yes I’ve played it many
times. Some code I made dead seemed totally useless but why not add to
@@ -2939,11 +2943,11 @@ reading the strings/data files they would have to run the program to confirm
what this is. And even then it shouldn’t be easy to follow the code, for reasons
I mentioned in <a href="obfuscation.html">obfuscation.html</a> (and some briefly below).</p>
<p>In general I think it’s extremely hard to follow the flow of this program due to
the abuse of <del>116</del> 131 <code>goto</code>s, more than the BASIC game.
<del>134</del> 149 when pre-processed. But
let’s be honest, or 131 for a small C program is too many but to be seven more
than the larger BASIC program? That is hard to fathom. Not that <del>116</del>
131/149 is not too many for larger programs…or one goto, for that matter.</p>
the abuse of <del>116</del> 134 <code>goto</code>s, more than the BASIC game.
<del>134</del> 152 when pre-processed. But let’s be honest, 134 for a small C
program is too many but to be 25 (or 43 pre-processed) more than the larger
BASIC program? That is hard to fathom. Not that <del>116</del> 131/149 is not
too many for larger programs…or one goto, for that matter.</p>
<p>As noted elsewhere, I originally submitted a slightly less goto complete
version, with 116/134 gotos, before/after the cpp, which was due to practical
reasons, and to make the judges weep (and probably curse the Devil - and author,
@@ -3048,7 +3052,7 @@ a single flat <code>char *</code>, although I do think that’s pretty cool and
<code>+--</code> I talked about in <a href="obfuscation.html">obfuscation.html</a> (in fact in some
if not most contexts it IS illegal). The bastardised Duff’s device I would not
do. I would not put the entire function in a switch.</p>
<p>But above all I would not have used <del>116</del> 131 (or <del>134</del> 149)
<p>But above all I would not have used <del>116</del> 134 (or <del>134</del> 152)
<code>goto</code>s. Or ten. Or five. Or even one. Better to let code generators like
flex/bison take the crown. I have dethroned them though (at least from what I
have seen before) - by a huge amount. But perhaps
@@ -3110,7 +3114,7 @@ mean many <code>goto</code>s.</p>
<p>There are so many <code>goto</code>s that to try and move code to add more <code>goto</code>s is
basically pointless, unless as a joke. In this program it would really not do
anything. I essentially ran out of code to move. Even if I had more though,
isn’t <del>134</del> 149 enough, especially in a program that, counting spaces,
isn’t <del>134</del> 152 enough, especially in a program that, counting spaces,
including unnecessary spaces to add to the size, is only 4666 bytes? It would be
smaller except to stay on theme. Doing more would no longer be funny. Enough is
enough. Or at least I hope. Okay…actually I take that back. More would be
@@ -3155,8 +3159,8 @@ is the same but that only shows how very often the line changes. It is a total
of <strong>1416</strong> (!) changes, counting function calls, and <strong>1131</strong> (!) excluding
function calls. Macros are not counted of course.</p>
<p>This program, if you remove blank lines and lines with just a brace,
<code>#include</code>s and only variables, has a mere 58 (!) lines.</p>
<p>A program that has only 58 lines of code that jumps 1416 (counting functions) or
<code>#include</code>s and only variables, has a mere 55 (!) lines.</p>
<p>A program that has only 55 lines of code that jumps 1416 (counting functions) or
1131 (just in main()) times is astonishing. Of course that’s not the
only technique but the title of the award and the judges’ remarks are rather
fitting as it is diabolical to follow this code (and the theme of the game fits
@@ -3175,7 +3179,7 @@ he was wrong.</p>
<p>It is not about not trying. But even IF he WAS right, he
sure as hell is wrong NOW. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to try and debug
my program - or maintain it. Or write it.</p>
<p>It would have been SO MUCH EASIER if I did not use <del>134</del> 149 <code>goto</code>s.
<p>It would have been SO MUCH EASIER if I did not use <del>134</del> 152 <code>goto</code>s.
Actually, even a tiny portion of that would make it harder. Nobody, whether
they’re in their right mind or not, would WANT to MAINTAIN this, or something
even close to it. Feel free to pass on judgement to me. I welcome it! You have
@@ -3291,8 +3295,8 @@ that they aren’t harmful, mostly to show just how extreme this program went.</
<a href="https://www.blackduck.com/blog/understanding-apple-goto-fail-vulnerability-2.html" class="uri">https://www.blackduck.com/blog/understanding-apple-goto-fail-vulnerability-2.html</a>.
That’s all it takes: <strong>JUST ONE <code>goto</code> led to a CVE</strong>!</p>
<p>It is ironic, perfect and hilarious that it was <code>goto fail;</code> as it was actually
a failure in using <code>goto</code>! My code has <del>134</del> 149 (with the cpp,
<del>116</del> 131 without). That is obscene. I did not fail. At all.</p>
a failure in using <code>goto</code>! My code has 134/152 (pre-pre-processed,
pre-processed). That is obscene. I did not fail. At all.</p>
<p>On the contrary I have made a point. Okay, that is not the only reason I did it
but when I got started I couldn’t help it…I thought it was (and still do think
it is) hilarious. But only for satirical programming like the contest. I would
@@ -3328,8 +3332,8 @@ Yes, in the IOCCC, but outside that?</p>
<p>In BASIC and asm and some other languages jumps are a core part of the language.
And those languages can be harder to maintain partly because of jumps. C is not
one of those languages. Or it wasn’t until now.</p>
<p>Yes, yes…I know, I <strong>KNOW</strong> I put in <del>116</del> 131 <code>goto</code>s with
<del>134</del> 149 when pre-processed and that is probably more extreme than any
<p>Yes, yes…I know, I <strong>KNOW</strong> I put in <del>116</del> 134 <code>goto</code>s with
<del>134</del> 152 when pre-processed and that is probably more extreme than any
other C program, especially in such a small program (and I REALLY hope I’m right
there!). But <strong>this does NOT matter</strong>! Even if one or two were not harmful (but
they are) it’s jumping down a rabbit hole that can very easily get deeper and
@@ -3376,7 +3380,7 @@ recognise what I mean - and yes it’s in the game).</p>
<p>On a lighter note (or maybe this is darker?): did you know that every time a
<code>goto</code> is used an angel (whatever you consider an angel) <strong>DIES</strong> and goes
straight to HELL? You don’t really want that do you? I didn’t think so. Yes I
killed <del>134</del> 149 angels. YES I condemned <del>134</del> 149 angels to
killed <del>134</del> 152 angels. YES I condemned <del>134</del> 152 angels to
eternal torment. I <strong>HAD</strong> to. I don’t regret it - but you should, if you
<strong>ever</strong> write something like this outside the IOCCC. In fact you should regret
a single <del>goto</del> angel dying. Even if they did not go straight to hell
@@ -3772,7 +3776,7 @@ helps you appreciate the careful design even more.<a href="#fnref2" class="footn
<li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/byteread.c">byteread.c</a> - prints out the strings without locations</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/bytetest.c">bytetest.c</a> - prints every string extracted from data</li>
<li><a href="deobfuscation.html">deobfuscation.html</a> - hints on how to deobfuscate</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/gotos.c.txt">gotos.c.txt</a> - text file showing only the gotos in the entry code</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/gotos.c.txt">gotos.c.txt</a> - text file showing only gotos in the entry code pre cpp</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/jumps.txt">jumps.txt</a> - text file showing all the line changes in a single run</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/lencount.c">lencount.c</a> - counts strings and reports longest one</li>
<li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/mbcheck.c">mbcheck.c</a> - show location of multibyte characters</li>
2024/ferguson1/obfuscation.html
+133 -49
View File
@@ -486,7 +486,7 @@ Harmful”</a></em>.
See the Communications of the ACM, March 1987, Page 195-196.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(I refute some things in my program that directly contradicts Frank’s
letter in amusing or at least instructional ways in my <a href="#devil">remarks above</a>.</p>
letter in amusing or at least instructional ways in my <a href="index.html#devil">remarks</a>.</p>
<p>I added bold to logical conclusion because I wanted to stress this. I’m afraid
they were wrong, oh so very VERY <strong>VERY</strong> WRONG. 24 <code>goto</code>s, according to
<code>hines</code> itself, is not the <code>goto</code> logical conclusion. I agree it’s a beautiful
@@ -495,11 +495,11 @@ counter-example for that letter but oh is everyone in for a HUGE SHOCK!</p>
too many, even in a large program, let alone a small one. Even one <code>goto</code> is too
many. Unless I am very much mistaken, I have broken the record by a huge margin.</p>
<p>Here’s the horrifying and hilarious truth: I beat it out by <del>92</del> 107
MORE, <strong>BEFORE</strong> the cpp at <del>116</del> 131 and after the cpp is through I
beat it by <strong>125</strong> MORE (!!), <strong>AT 149!</strong> Yes, you read that right.
<del>134</del> 149 <code>goto</code>s! The originally submitted prog.c, submitted for
practical reasons only, had it at, as might be guessed, 116/134 before and after
the cpp.</p>
MORE, <strong>BEFORE</strong> the cpp at <del>116</del> 134 and after the cpp is through I
beat it by <strong>128</strong> MORE (!!), <strong>AT 152!</strong> Yes, you read that right.
<del>134</del> 152 <code>goto</code>s! The originally submitted prog.c, submitted for
practical reasons only, had it at, as might be guessed from above, 116/134
before and after the cpp.</p>
<p>Even removing what I think were the only dead <code>goto</code>s in the incomplete version,
two of them, including one that is in the <code>w()</code> macro that would be translated
into more, I beat it by 90 more, at 114 before the cpp, and 99 more after the
@@ -509,26 +509,26 @@ MEASLY 109? THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. Well it did happen and this HAS to be a
joke, right? I’m sorry but it is NOT a joke. I am for real. There REALLY are
that many and that is ridiculous.</p>
<p>Okay so it’s a joke in another way but nonetheless YES I <strong>REALLY DID</strong> put in
<del>116/134</del> 131/149 <code>goto</code>s, depending on if you pre-process it or not!
<del>116/134</del> 134/152 <code>goto</code>s, depending on if you pre-process it or not!
YES I might be mad. YES I think it’s HILARIOUS. But if it was not for the
IOCCC… Well, as I mention in my <a href="#devil">remarks above</a>, EVEN ONE IS TOO MANY
IOCCC… Well, as I mention in my <a href="index.html#devil">remarks above</a>, EVEN ONE IS TOO MANY
in real code.</p>
<p>I dare you to run the program in a debugger from start to finish to see how many
line jumps there truly are. After I won I did it once: removing the <code>#include</code>s,
blank lines, lines with only variables and lines with just braces (i.e. only
lines of code) the program has just 58 lines and in a single run there were a
lines of code) the program has just 55 lines and in a single run there were a
total of <strong>1416</strong> (!) line changes, counting function calls. In <code>main()</code> itself
the line changed a total of <strong>1131</strong> (!) times!</p>
<p>The best (or worst, depending on how you look at it :-) ) part is this works. As
I note in those concluding remarks, a <a href="https://www.apple.com">nameless company</a>
actually introduced a security hole from ONE <code>goto</code>. Yet I have
<del>116/134</del> 131/149 and it actually works? That is surely obscene. And
<del>116/134</del> 134/152 and it actually works? That is surely obscene. And
beautiful. But wrong.</p>
<p>Oh and BTW: it appears that <code>hines</code> is a bit confused about my entry, though I’m
not really sure why. In any case, I not only have dethroned <code>hines</code> (sorry
…but also not sorry!) but I have, as noted already, beaten the original BASIC
game by <del>7</del> 22 more <code>goto</code>s at <del>116</del> 131 before the cpp
and <del><strong>18 MORE</strong></del> <strong>40 MORE</strong> after the cpp, at 149!</p>
game by <del>7</del> 25 more <code>goto</code>s at <del>116</del> 134 before the cpp
and <del><strong>18 MORE</strong></del> <strong>43 MORE</strong> after the cpp, at 152!</p>
<p>It’s almost impossible to add more <code>goto</code>s. With the iocccsize it is impossible,
if I don’t want to sacrifice the rest of the program. You’ll see why soon. But
even if that was not the case I wanted room for the other things I did, some of
@@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ in general, where code can be, where labels can be, really everything: the code
is in all the wrong places.</p>
<p>This is not counting other cool things like a single <code>char *</code> holding near 200
<code>char *</code>s. No. I do not mean an array of <code>char *</code>s! I mean a single flat <code>char *</code>! Yet in the code I index it AS IF it’s a <code>char *[]</code>, just to add to the
confusion (as if the <del>134</del> 149 <code>goto</code>s are not bad enough). But it’s
confusion (as if the <del>134</del> 152 <code>goto</code>s are not bad enough). But it’s
not a <code>char *[]</code>. It’s a single <code>char *</code>, which is the contents of the data
file.</p>
<p>There are other things I have done, of course.</p>
@@ -594,15 +594,15 @@ have lost my mind this program sure as hell lost its mind! And it’s my fault.
Hilarious.</p>
<p>Counting whitespace this program is only 4666 bytes according to <code>wc -c</code> (macOS
at the least, maybe others): quite intentionally to be on theme. That’s a
relatively short program to have <del>116</del> 131 <code>goto</code>s or more when
filtered through <code>cc -E</code> (<del>134</del> 149!), wouldn’t you say? If that’s NOT
relatively short program to have <del>116</del> 134 <code>goto</code>s or more when
filtered through <code>cc -E</code> (<del>134</del> 152!), wouldn’t you say? If that’s NOT
too many, then I ask you WHAT IS?</p>
<p>As said in numerous places, IT IS MUCH SMALLER than the BASIC file I included
even after stripping it of much of it. My program also has more events. I think
the BASIC one has 16 not counting the mountains code and mine is 23 not counting
the mountains code, which obviously I also include and has more events (if we
count the doctor visits an event then even more).</p>
<p>I discuss this some in my concluding <a href="#devil">remarks above</a>, as well as
<p>I discuss this some in my concluding <a href="index.html#devil">remarks above</a>, as well as
mentioning that there are other events besides those 23. I certainly will not
reveal all though. The humour and jokes sections of that file says more but the
concluding remarks are for a summary and why I think that this code is worthy of
@@ -631,7 +631,7 @@ code, as this program also shows. It’s just that the amount of <code>goto</cod
the worst of it as you never know where the program will be next, and that’s
putting it in a simpler way. Much, much, MUCH simpler way, in fact, as you’ll
see.</p>
<p>Either way this program, and I mention this in my <a href="#devil">remarks above</a> in an
<p>Either way this program, and I mention this in my <a href="index.html#devil">remarks above</a> in an
admittedly long editorial plea (although it does it by going over what I have
done in simpler terms than this file), serves as a public service, warning about
<code>goto</code>. The article about goto considered harmful has nothing against this, or
@@ -640,8 +640,8 @@ been mad enough to do what I have done.</p>
<p>Here are some fun statistics from a somewhat rudimentary program on both the
prog.c and after filtered through <code>cc -E</code>. First prog.c. Prepare to be
horrified, if you’re not already:</p>
<pre><code> 131 goto
301 semicolon
<pre><code> 134 goto
304 semicolon
143 colon
51 if
11 else
@@ -662,10 +662,10 @@ horrified, if you’re not already:</p>
1 char
1 size_t
Ratio: 1.01 gotos per keyword</code></pre>
<p>1.01 goto per keyword? But then there’s the cpp filtered code…</p>
<pre><code> 149 goto
339 semicolon
Ratio: 1.03 gotos per keyword</code></pre>
<p>1.03 goto per keyword? But then there’s the cpp filtered code…</p>
<pre><code> 152 goto
342 semicolon
143 colon
51 if
11 else
@@ -686,9 +686,13 @@ horrified, if you’re not already:</p>
1 char
1 size_t
Ratio: 1.11 gotos per keyword</code></pre>
<p>1.11!</p>
<p>For comparison, here is the original version:</p>
Ratio: 1.13 gotos per keyword</code></pre>
<p>1.13! Did you also notice that despite there being 32 <code>case</code> statements there
are <strong>0</strong> <code>break</code>s? See the label <code>Z</code> for how that one works, although as you’ll
notice one event actually flows right into it only to move on to the next part
of the code. Additionally there are many <code>goto</code>s and labels in the <code>switch()</code>s
that don’t belong there in normal code, or for that matter in any code.</p>
<p>Anyway for comparison, here is the original version’s stats:</p>
<pre><code> 116 goto
294 semicolon
138 colon
@@ -837,7 +841,7 @@ it.</p>
<p>There are a lot of ways to obscure code and I don’t believe anyone has taken
<code>goto</code> to this obscenity in C. I believe the one with the most <code>goto</code>s is
1987/hines and, as noted earlier, it reports on itself as having only 24
<code>goto</code>s. Yet I have <del>116</del> 131 before the cpp and <del>134</del> 149
<code>goto</code>s. Yet I have <del>116</del> 134 before the cpp and <del>134</del> 152
(!!) after the cpp.</p>
<p>And unfortunately for you dear reader I have done other things that also are
quite different and totally unrelated to <code>goto</code>s. Even so the <code>goto</code> madness by
@@ -996,7 +1000,8 @@ one question their sanity even more. Yes I’m probably a sociopath.</p>
* filtered through the cpp and 134 after the cpp and I didn&#39;t wish to
* repeatedly revisit this file trying to explain everything.</code></pre>
<p>…and of course now the count, prog.c being the full version and prog.alt2.c
being the practical version, have the count at 131/149.</p>
being the practical version, have the count at 131/149 (actually, prog.alt2.c
has the 116/134).</p>
<p>I hope you understand but I do believe it’s a gain not a loss. It is good enough
especially as it’s only for educational value - or to examine my head (though
prog.c might be better for that?). As noted the code (and jokes) took a couple
@@ -1065,7 +1070,7 @@ is? In some ways it is actually polymorphic, doing drastically different things,
depending on the pRNG and which event it is.</p>
<p>At one point I was <strong>DEAD CERTAIN</strong> that part of this that should not be dead
was dead. But every part of it that is meant to be live is. There was a part
that was broken but that was fixed. As I noted in my <a href="#devil">remarks above</a>,
that was broken but that was fixed. As I noted in my <a href="index.html#devil">remarks above</a>,
this event (11 in particular, under <code>V</code>), will not necessarily do anything, as
it depends on another call to the pRNG. This is good because otherwise every
time it triggered it would cause severe illness.</p>
@@ -1495,7 +1500,7 @@ well-rounded in obfuscation.</p>
</div>
<p><strong>IMPORTANT NOTE TO THE JUDGES</strong>: if any problems in the data file exist,
remember to regenerate it as described in the Judges section and/or the
Troubleshooting section in the <a href="#devil">remarks above</a>. It is greatly
Troubleshooting section in the <a href="index.html#devil">remarks above</a>. It is greatly
appreciated that if by some chance you do run into a problem that you do this
quick procedure (the addpadding <code>-d</code> option can also be used to reveal what the
program is doing for those who wish to see more, although trying to play the
@@ -1511,7 +1516,7 @@ does (unless I missed it in a rule) <strong>BUT EVEN IF</strong> that’s all go
are <strong>ANY</strong> issues <strong>PLEASE</strong> run the <code>addpadding</code> tool manually (or better yet
<code>make makedata</code>).</p>
<p>The data file key is part of the obfuscation both in code and in data; it also
stays on theme. As noted in my <a href="#devil">remarks above</a>, I have bypassed the
stays on theme. As noted in my <a href="index.html#devil">remarks above</a>, I have bypassed the
concern of SUS portability by including my own tools, much like previous winning
entries did with POSIX compatibility.</p>
<p>I finally added the test rule to the Makefile to be sure things are sane too,
@@ -1709,7 +1714,8 @@ instructional either. I have included everything that is needed, however.</p>
<code>data.scrnshot.src</code> are created/used by <code>addpadding</code> and are vital to the game
(for the .asc data files it is for the non-emoji version, <code>prog.asc</code>, but used
by the same code, hence the <code>DATA</code> macro and the same applies to the screenshot
friendly one, as I discussed in the data files versions in my <a href="#devil">remarks above</a>).</p>
friendly one, as I discussed in the data files versions in my <a href="index.html#devil">remarks
above</a>).</p>
<p>The <code>data*.src</code> files are included for the purpose of allowing the files to be
created prior to running the game as they are vital, just like previous entries
with their data files.</p>
@@ -1770,11 +1776,85 @@ near 200 <code>char *</code>s in a single <code>char *</code> (NOT a <code>char
interesting and it’s one of the reasons I’m quite proud of it.</p>
<p>Interesting thing to ponder: what happens if a string is too long for the
padding?</p>
<div id="litmus">
<h3 id="litmus-test">Litmus test</h3>
</div>
<p>I did not write about this as much in my submission but since I made some
updates post winning I figured I would write about the litmus test that I
devised, to know that everything is working right.</p>
<p>It should be noted however that unless you know the code <strong>EXTREMELY</strong> well
(which probably only means me :-) and this will probably get less true as time
goes by) it might be hard to perform this and be 100% certain it is okay. This
especially goes because there are things that most people would think are logic
flow errors but are very intentional. I mentioned some in my
<a href="index.html">remarks</a>.</p>
<p>I did briefly mention this in my <a href="index.html">remarks</a> but here is a bit more
detail. It seems fitting here as the obfuscation talks about <code>goto</code>s more.</p>
<p>The key here is the events switch. If every event can fire without, for
instance, running through the game until you die, and you can also get sick, get
hurt (both of which can happen with different events or rather will) and also
make sure to have the right amount of (for instance) ammo for one event, right
amount (&gt; 666 and &lt; 666) money for when you need the doctor, and also trying to
spend too much money (as in you don’t have that much money as well as &gt; 666) at
the fort (this can also be done in the beginning of the game before you go on
the trail because it’s actually the same code reused) along with some things
only I might know (but perhaps not? You decide! :-) ) then <del>you</del> I can
be sure the code works as intended.</p>
<p>One of the above things actually did go wrong earlier on but fortunately it was
caught early on as it required rolling back a commit; if I had done many commits
after the problematic commit I would have lost a lot of time I kept adding more
events and more <code>goto</code>s.</p>
<p>Here is how to test every event in the event loop, though as some are chances
based on which event fires, you might have to run it multiple times. But since
one should go through the game or at least a few turns (at least!) per event,
this is not a problem. I should remind you that there are times where an event
might fire but might not do anything. This happens to do with event 11 and where
it goes and what it does.</p>
<p>To really test it well the last time I did this was in the
<a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/prog.gotos.c">prog.gotos.c</a> file as it’s the code
merged close together, taking it WAY BEYOND rule 2b limit (due to <code>;</code>, <code>{</code>
and <code>}</code> not being followed by spaces and the prog.c being at the max already).
This benefited me as I could also verify that the formatting did not get messed
up i.e. the code did not get mangled when merging lines.</p>
<p>The event switch is the following code (from prog.c):</p>
<pre><code> Y:switch(q=x(0,22))
</code></pre>
<p>so what you do is change the <code>x(0,22)</code> to go from 0 to 22, meaning that you have
to compile the code 23 times. If one wants to check the <code>heaven</code> label they need
to modify <code>i</code> to be <code>17</code> at a specific spot (well - or end up triggering a
certain piece of code, which I think is in event 11, though it’s not as
straight-forward as just testing that, although you could just set <code>i=17;</code> in
the right spot).</p>
<p>One should also try hunting and also going to the fort, at random times, but it
should not be needed in every run. The same applies to the other checks that
aren’t event specific.</p>
<p>One more thing about events: some events can be a different message per instance
so just because the same message does not repeat every time for a specific event
does not mean it is not correct; not only is this the case for event 11 but it’s
also the case for some others too. Another example is event 15 but it’s not the
only one (well, it might be, but there are various other events - events are not
just in the event switch! - that have different messages depending on the pRNG
and other circumstances).</p>
<p>One other thing is that it is good to test having no oxen and also having enough
oxen where you will eat one (this can depend on the event and also if you’re out
of food so this also varies).</p>
<p>As you can see there is a lot to test but doing this, assuming I’ve not left
anything out, allows one to verify the code is correct. This is one of the
reasons I took extreme care when developing and why it required constant
testing! In fact the bug I mentioned where it took me from an event all the way
to the end of the game, was only for one event, so if that didn’t fire I might
have missed it until I checked every event. This is how perilous it is with
<code>goto</code>s but as I noted even though I have (pre-processed) 152 <code>goto</code>s it works.
Of course it shouldn’t but it does.</p>
<div id="conclusions">
<div id="conclusion">
<h3 id="conclusions">Conclusions</h3>
</div>
</div>
<p>A question: is this well-rounded in obfuscation as the judges like? Definitely.</p>
<p>The fact that close to 200 NUL terminated strings are in a single <code>char *</code> (!!),
the odd looking compound literal, the maze of <code>goto</code>s (<del>116</del> 131 or
<del>134</del> 149 depending on if you pre-process the code), the bastardised
the odd looking compound literal, the maze of <code>goto</code>s (<del>116</del> 134 or
<del>134</del> 152 depending on if you pre-process the code), the bastardised
Duff’s device, the strange labels inside <code>switch()</code>s, the jumping into and out
of <code>switch()</code>s only to jump back in (or out), the for loops split across several
parts of the code (one making it look like variables are uninitialised), if/else
@@ -1791,27 +1871,31 @@ want to waste perfectly good spaghetti. There comes a point when there’s just
much spaghetti that it’s wasted, if it can even be cooked. I believed I reached
the latter. But of course that was a practical choice - and not my complete
version. It was just easier to test as I had another version to contend to.</p>
<p>But let’s say I had more space with iocccsize: do you REALLY expect me to add
more spaghetti? There isn’t anything that could be done, even if it was possible
to maintain this huge platter of delicious spaghetti without gaining fifty
kilograms. Besides, I don’t want to see spaghetti EVER AGAIN!! I’ve had enough
of it for a lifetime! Okay, that’s not really true…it DOES sound good but I
won’t likely be having it for a while. Can you actually blame me though? This
spaghetti almost strangled me to death, like it did the Devil (I provided
photographic proof of this earlier if you missed that). Still…now that things
have settled a bit, I rather desire very much a platter of spaghetti.</p>
<p>Do you REALLY expect me to add more spaghetti? There isn’t anything that could
be done, even if it was possible to maintain this huge platter of delicious
spaghetti without gaining fifty kilograms. Besides, I don’t want to see
spaghetti EVER AGAIN!! I’ve had enough of it for a lifetime! Okay, that’s not
really true…it DOES sound good but I won’t likely be having it for a while.
Can you actually blame me though? This spaghetti almost strangled me to death,
like it did the Devil (I provided photographic proof of this earlier if you
missed that). Still…now that things have settled a bit, I rather desire very
much a platter of spaghetti.</p>
<p>Okay so I <strong>did</strong> it after the win for the ‘full version’ but that only makes it
even more ludicrous doesn’t it?</p>
<p>I have already demonstrated several other subtle and unique things but the
<code>goto</code>s are what really makes it hard to parse; the other things are REALLY cool
(unlike the spaghetti, at least hopefully) and interesting, and unique (or so I
think), but those would be much less tasty without the HUGE pot of spaghetti
(okay, once some of it is put on a plate).</p>
<p>If I added more <code>goto</code>s it would be meaningless. A large family might not even
be able to eat it all without some of it going to waste. The <code>goto</code>s and how
they’re used make it hard to follow this code, in fact making it very
unpredictable. It is constantly jumping to unusual places and doing things that
seem downright illegal. It should not work.</p>
<p>If I added more <code>goto</code>s it would be meaningless (does that mean that the fact I
did it it’s meaningless? In a strange way the answer is it’s not actually
meaningless :-) ). A large family might not even be able to eat it all without
some of it going to waste. The <code>goto</code>s and how they’re used make it hard to
follow this code, in fact making it very unpredictable. It is constantly jumping
to unusual places and doing things that seem downright illegal. It should not
work.</p>
<p>But it <strong>DOES</strong> work. Exactly as I meant. As noted in my concluding remarks in
my <a href="#devil">remarks above</a>, I started introducing bugs. It was extremely hard to
my <a href="index.html#devil">remarks above</a>, I started introducing bugs. It was extremely hard to
find ways to make the spaghetti even more twisted. How is that even POSSIBLE? I
don’t think you could manage that with ACTUAL spaghetti!</p>
<p>On top of all this: I kept it thematic, in code <strong>and</strong> data, and the code even
2024/ferguson1/obfuscation.md
+151 -49
View File
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ Harmful"](https://web.archive.org/web/20090320002214/http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/P
See the Communications of the ACM, March 1987, Page 195-196.
(I refute some things in my program that directly contradicts Frank's
letter in amusing or at least instructional ways in my [remarks above](#devil).
letter in amusing or at least instructional ways in my [remarks](index.html#devil).
I added bold to logical conclusion because I wanted to stress this. I'm afraid
they were wrong, oh so very VERY **VERY** WRONG. 24 `goto`s, according to
@@ -49,11 +49,11 @@ too many, even in a large program, let alone a small one. Even one `goto` is too
many. Unless I am very much mistaken, I have broken the record by a huge margin.
Here's the horrifying and hilarious truth: I beat it out by <del>92</del> 107
MORE, **BEFORE** the cpp at <del>116</del> 131 and after the cpp is through I
beat it by **125** MORE (!!), **AT 149!** Yes, you read that right.
<del>134</del> 149 `goto`s! The originally submitted prog.c, submitted for
practical reasons only, had it at, as might be guessed, 116/134 before and after
the cpp.
MORE, **BEFORE** the cpp at <del>116</del> 134 and after the cpp is through I
beat it by **128** MORE (!!), **AT 152!** Yes, you read that right.
<del>134</del> 152 `goto`s! The originally submitted prog.c, submitted for
practical reasons only, had it at, as might be guessed from above, 116/134
before and after the cpp.
Even removing what I think were the only dead `goto`s in the incomplete version,
two of them, including one that is in the `w()` macro that would be translated
@@ -66,29 +66,29 @@ joke, right? I'm sorry but it is NOT a joke. I am for real. There REALLY are
that many and that is ridiculous.
Okay so it's a joke in another way but nonetheless YES I **REALLY DID** put in
<del>116/134</del> 131/149 `goto`s, depending on if you pre-process it or not!
<del>116/134</del> 134/152 `goto`s, depending on if you pre-process it or not!
YES I might be mad. YES I think it's HILARIOUS. But if it was not for the
IOCCC... Well, as I mention in my [remarks above](#devil), EVEN ONE IS TOO MANY
IOCCC... Well, as I mention in my [remarks above](index.html#devil), EVEN ONE IS TOO MANY
in real code.
I dare you to run the program in a debugger from start to finish to see how many
line jumps there truly are. After I won I did it once: removing the `#include`s,
blank lines, lines with only variables and lines with just braces (i.e. only
lines of code) the program has just 58 lines and in a single run there were a
lines of code) the program has just 55 lines and in a single run there were a
total of **1416** (!) line changes, counting function calls. In `main()` itself
the line changed a total of **1131** (!) times!
The best (or worst, depending on how you look at it :-) ) part is this works. As
I note in those concluding remarks, a [nameless company](https://www.apple.com)
actually introduced a security hole from ONE `goto`. Yet I have
<del>116/134</del> 131/149 and it actually works? That is surely obscene. And
<del>116/134</del> 134/152 and it actually works? That is surely obscene. And
beautiful. But wrong.
Oh and BTW: it appears that `hines` is a bit confused about my entry, though I'm
not really sure why. In any case, I not only have dethroned `hines` (sorry
...but also not sorry!) but I have, as noted already, beaten the original BASIC
game by <del>7</del> 22 more `goto`s at <del>116</del> 131 before the cpp
and <del>**18 MORE**</del> **40 MORE** after the cpp, at 149!
game by <del>7</del> 25 more `goto`s at <del>116</del> 134 before the cpp
and <del>**18 MORE**</del> **43 MORE** after the cpp, at 152!
It's almost impossible to add more `goto`s. With the iocccsize it is impossible,
if I don't want to sacrifice the rest of the program. You'll see why soon. But
@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ is in all the wrong places.
This is not counting other cool things like a single `char *` holding near 200
`char *`s. No. I do not mean an array of `char *`s! I mean a single flat `char
*`! Yet in the code I index it AS IF it's a `char *[]`, just to add to the
confusion (as if the <del>134</del> 149 `goto`s are not bad enough). But it's
confusion (as if the <del>134</del> 152 `goto`s are not bad enough). But it's
not a `char *[]`. It's a single `char *`, which is the contents of the data
file.
@@ -171,8 +171,8 @@ Hilarious.
Counting whitespace this program is only 4666 bytes according to `wc -c` (macOS
at the least, maybe others): quite intentionally to be on theme. That's a
relatively short program to have <del>116</del> 131 `goto`s or more when
filtered through `cc -E` (<del>134</del> 149!), wouldn't you say? If that's NOT
relatively short program to have <del>116</del> 134 `goto`s or more when
filtered through `cc -E` (<del>134</del> 152!), wouldn't you say? If that's NOT
too many, then I ask you WHAT IS?
As said in numerous places, IT IS MUCH SMALLER than the BASIC file I included
@@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ the BASIC one has 16 not counting the mountains code and mine is 23 not counting
the mountains code, which obviously I also include and has more events (if we
count the doctor visits an event then even more).
I discuss this some in my concluding [remarks above](#devil), as well as
I discuss this some in my concluding [remarks above](index.html#devil), as well as
mentioning that there are other events besides those 23. I certainly will not
reveal all though. The humour and jokes sections of that file says more but the
concluding remarks are for a summary and why I think that this code is worthy of
@@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ the worst of it as you never know where the program will be next, and that's
putting it in a simpler way. Much, much, MUCH simpler way, in fact, as you'll
see.
Either way this program, and I mention this in my [remarks above](#devil) in an
Either way this program, and I mention this in my [remarks above](index.html#devil) in an
admittedly long editorial plea (although it does it by going over what I have
done in simpler terms than this file), serves as a public service, warning about
`goto`. The article about goto considered harmful has nothing against this, or
@@ -229,8 +229,8 @@ prog.c and after filtered through `cc -E`. First prog.c. Prepare to be
horrified, if you're not already:
```
131 goto
301 semicolon
134 goto
304 semicolon
143 colon
51 if
11 else
@@ -251,14 +251,14 @@ horrified, if you're not already:
1 char
1 size_t
Ratio: 1.01 gotos per keyword
Ratio: 1.03 gotos per keyword
```
1.01 goto per keyword? But then there's the cpp filtered code...
1.03 goto per keyword? But then there's the cpp filtered code...
```
149 goto
339 semicolon
152 goto
342 semicolon
143 colon
51 if
11 else
@@ -279,12 +279,16 @@ horrified, if you're not already:
1 char
1 size_t
Ratio: 1.11 gotos per keyword
Ratio: 1.13 gotos per keyword
```
1.11!
1.13! Did you also notice that despite there being 32 `case` statements there
are **0** `break`s? See the label `Z` for how that one works, although as you'll
notice one event actually flows right into it only to move on to the next part
of the code. Additionally there are many `goto`s and labels in the `switch()`s
that don't belong there in normal code, or for that matter in any code.
For comparison, here is the original version:
Anyway for comparison, here is the original version's stats:
```
116 goto
@@ -475,7 +479,7 @@ it.
There are a lot of ways to obscure code and I don't believe anyone has taken
`goto` to this obscenity in C. I believe the one with the most `goto`s is
1987/hines and, as noted earlier, it reports on itself as having only 24
`goto`s. Yet I have <del>116</del> 131 before the cpp and <del>134</del> 149
`goto`s. Yet I have <del>116</del> 134 before the cpp and <del>134</del> 152
(!!) after the cpp.
And unfortunately for you dear reader I have done other things that also are
@@ -663,7 +667,8 @@ As I commented in the commented.c:
```
...and of course now the count, prog.c being the full version and prog.alt2.c
being the practical version, have the count at 131/149.
being the practical version, have the count at 131/149 (actually, prog.alt2.c
has the 116/134).
I hope you understand but I do believe it's a gain not a loss. It is good enough
especially as it's only for educational value - or to examine my head (though
@@ -746,7 +751,7 @@ depending on the pRNG and which event it is.
At one point I was **DEAD CERTAIN** that part of this that should not be dead
was dead. But every part of it that is meant to be live is. There was a part
that was broken but that was fixed. As I noted in my [remarks above](#devil),
that was broken but that was fixed. As I noted in my [remarks above](index.html#devil),
this event (11 in particular, under `V`), will not necessarily do anything, as
it depends on another call to the pRNG. This is good because otherwise every
time it triggered it would cause severe illness.
@@ -1328,7 +1333,7 @@ well-rounded in obfuscation.
**IMPORTANT NOTE TO THE JUDGES**: if any problems in the data file exist,
remember to regenerate it as described in the Judges section and/or the
Troubleshooting section in the [remarks above](#devil). It is greatly
Troubleshooting section in the [remarks above](index.html#devil). It is greatly
appreciated that if by some chance you do run into a problem that you do this
quick procedure (the addpadding `-d` option can also be used to reveal what the
program is doing for those who wish to see more, although trying to play the
@@ -1347,7 +1352,7 @@ are **ANY** issues **PLEASE** run the `addpadding` tool manually (or better yet
`make makedata`).
The data file key is part of the obfuscation both in code and in data; it also
stays on theme. As noted in my [remarks above](#devil), I have bypassed the
stays on theme. As noted in my [remarks above](index.html#devil), I have bypassed the
concern of SUS portability by including my own tools, much like previous winning
entries did with POSIX compatibility.
@@ -1603,7 +1608,8 @@ The files `data`, `data.src`, `data.asc`, `data.asc.src`, `data.scrnshot` and
`data.scrnshot.src` are created/used by `addpadding` and are vital to the game
(for the .asc data files it is for the non-emoji version, `prog.asc`, but used
by the same code, hence the `DATA` macro and the same applies to the screenshot
friendly one, as I discussed in the data files versions in my [remarks above](#devil)).
friendly one, as I discussed in the data files versions in my [remarks
above](index.html#devil)).
The `data*.src` files are included for the purpose of allowing the files to be
created prior to running the game as they are vital, just like previous entries
@@ -1679,14 +1685,105 @@ interesting and it's one of the reasons I'm quite proud of it.
Interesting thing to ponder: what happens if a string is too long for the
padding?
<div id="litmus">
### Litmus test
</div>
I did not write about this as much in my submission but since I made some
updates post winning I figured I would write about the litmus test that I
devised, to know that everything is working right.
It should be noted however that unless you know the code **EXTREMELY** well
(which probably only means me :-) and this will probably get less true as time
goes by) it might be hard to perform this and be 100% certain it is okay. This
especially goes because there are things that most people would think are logic
flow errors but are very intentional. I mentioned some in my
[remarks](index.html).
I did briefly mention this in my [remarks](index.html) but here is a bit more
detail. It seems fitting here as the obfuscation talks about `goto`s more.
The key here is the events switch. If every event can fire without, for
instance, running through the game until you die, and you can also get sick, get
hurt (both of which can happen with different events or rather will) and also
make sure to have the right amount of (for instance) ammo for one event, right
amount (> 666 and < 666) money for when you need the doctor, and also trying to
spend too much money (as in you don't have that much money as well as > 666) at
the fort (this can also be done in the beginning of the game before you go on
the trail because it's actually the same code reused) along with some things
only I might know (but perhaps not? You decide! :-) ) then <del>you</del> I can
be sure the code works as intended.
One of the above things actually did go wrong earlier on but fortunately it was
caught early on as it required rolling back a commit; if I had done many commits
after the problematic commit I would have lost a lot of time I kept adding more
events and more `goto`s.
Here is how to test every event in the event loop, though as some are chances
based on which event fires, you might have to run it multiple times. But since
one should go through the game or at least a few turns (at least!) per event,
this is not a problem. I should remind you that there are times where an event
might fire but might not do anything. This happens to do with event 11 and where
it goes and what it does.
To really test it well the last time I did this was in the
[prog.gotos.c](%%REPO_URL%%/2024/ferguson1/prog.gotos.c) file as it's the code
merged close together, taking it WAY BEYOND rule 2b limit (due to `;`, `{`
and `}` not being followed by spaces and the prog.c being at the max already).
This benefited me as I could also verify that the formatting did not get messed
up i.e. the code did not get mangled when merging lines.
The event switch is the following code (from prog.c):
``` <!---c-->
Y:switch(q=x(0,22))
```
so what you do is change the `x(0,22)` to go from 0 to 22, meaning that you have
to compile the code 23 times. If one wants to check the `heaven` label they need
to modify `i` to be `17` at a specific spot (well - or end up triggering a
certain piece of code, which I think is in event 11, though it's not as
straight-forward as just testing that, although you could just set `i=17;` in
the right spot).
One should also try hunting and also going to the fort, at random times, but it
should not be needed in every run. The same applies to the other checks that
aren't event specific.
One more thing about events: some events can be a different message per instance
so just because the same message does not repeat every time for a specific event
does not mean it is not correct; not only is this the case for event 11 but it's
also the case for some others too. Another example is event 15 but it's not the
only one (well, it might be, but there are various other events - events are not
just in the event switch! - that have different messages depending on the pRNG
and other circumstances).
One other thing is that it is good to test having no oxen and also having enough
oxen where you will eat one (this can depend on the event and also if you're out
of food so this also varies).
As you can see there is a lot to test but doing this, assuming I've not left
anything out, allows one to verify the code is correct. This is one of the
reasons I took extreme care when developing and why it required constant
testing! In fact the bug I mentioned where it took me from an event all the way
to the end of the game, was only for one event, so if that didn't fire I might
have missed it until I checked every event. This is how perilous it is with
`goto`s but as I noted even though I have (pre-processed) 152 `goto`s it works.
Of course it shouldn't but it does.
<div id="conclusions">
<div id="conclusion">
### Conclusions
</div>
</div>
A question: is this well-rounded in obfuscation as the judges like? Definitely.
The fact that close to 200 NUL terminated strings are in a single `char *` (!!),
the odd looking compound literal, the maze of `goto`s (<del>116</del> 131 or
<del>134</del> 149 depending on if you pre-process the code), the bastardised
the odd looking compound literal, the maze of `goto`s (<del>116</del> 134 or
<del>134</del> 152 depending on if you pre-process the code), the bastardised
Duff's device, the strange labels inside `switch()`s, the jumping into and out
of `switch()`s only to jump back in (or out), the for loops split across several
parts of the code (one making it look like variables are uninitialised), if/else
@@ -1705,15 +1802,18 @@ much spaghetti that it's wasted, if it can even be cooked. I believed I reached
the latter. But of course that was a practical choice - and not my complete
version. It was just easier to test as I had another version to contend to.
But let's say I had more space with iocccsize: do you REALLY expect me to add
more spaghetti? There isn't anything that could be done, even if it was possible
to maintain this huge platter of delicious spaghetti without gaining fifty
kilograms. Besides, I don't want to see spaghetti EVER AGAIN!! I've had enough
of it for a lifetime! Okay, that's not really true...it DOES sound good but I
won't likely be having it for a while. Can you actually blame me though? This
spaghetti almost strangled me to death, like it did the Devil (I provided
photographic proof of this earlier if you missed that). Still...now that things
have settled a bit, I rather desire very much a platter of spaghetti.
Do you REALLY expect me to add more spaghetti? There isn't anything that could
be done, even if it was possible to maintain this huge platter of delicious
spaghetti without gaining fifty kilograms. Besides, I don't want to see
spaghetti EVER AGAIN!! I've had enough of it for a lifetime! Okay, that's not
really true...it DOES sound good but I won't likely be having it for a while.
Can you actually blame me though? This spaghetti almost strangled me to death,
like it did the Devil (I provided photographic proof of this earlier if you
missed that). Still...now that things have settled a bit, I rather desire very
much a platter of spaghetti.
Okay so I **did** it after the win for the 'full version' but that only makes it
even more ludicrous doesn't it?
I have already demonstrated several other subtle and unique things but the
`goto`s are what really makes it hard to parse; the other things are REALLY cool
@@ -1721,14 +1821,16 @@ I have already demonstrated several other subtle and unique things but the
think), but those would be much less tasty without the HUGE pot of spaghetti
(okay, once some of it is put on a plate).
If I added more `goto`s it would be meaningless. A large family might not even
be able to eat it all without some of it going to waste. The `goto`s and how
they're used make it hard to follow this code, in fact making it very
unpredictable. It is constantly jumping to unusual places and doing things that
seem downright illegal. It should not work.
If I added more `goto`s it would be meaningless (does that mean that the fact I
did it it's meaningless? In a strange way the answer is it's not actually
meaningless :-) ). A large family might not even be able to eat it all without
some of it going to waste. The `goto`s and how they're used make it hard to
follow this code, in fact making it very unpredictable. It is constantly jumping
to unusual places and doing things that seem downright illegal. It should not
work.
But it **DOES** work. Exactly as I meant. As noted in my concluding remarks in
my [remarks above](#devil), I started introducing bugs. It was extremely hard to
my [remarks above](index.html#devil), I started introducing bugs. It was extremely hard to
find ways to make the spaghetti even more twisted. How is that even POSSIBLE? I
don't think you could manage that with ACTUAL spaghetti!
2024/ferguson1/prog.c
+4 -6
View File
@@ -14,15 +14,13 @@ long Z(long x){ return x * 1663; }
#define S(x,z) while(scanf(&y[Z(x)],&z)!=1)while(getchar()!='\n');
void V(long x){ printf("%s",&y[Z(x)]); }
long k() { return E>0?x(0,99)>49:0; } int main() {
switch(1)
{ j:if(z)goto A; E*=5; B:
switch(1) { j:if(z)goto A; E*=5; B:
printf(&y[Z(12)],T); if(z) { goto f; } goto PP; default: srand(time(0));
K=fopen(DATA,"r"); if(!K||getdelim(&y,&J,EOF,K)<0)
goto hell; goto M; OO:if(b<1) { if(a){ w(40) PP:goto G; } if(f) w(41) w(45) g:goto S; } w(M>2169?47:45)
hell:
return
666; rr:;
goto CC; yy:
666; rr:; goto CC; yy:
{ if(b<1||M<0||M>2169){ goto _; F:V(51); R+=18; goto L; } goto i;
P:for(X=1; X<--(unsigned){ 7 } ; ){ goto kk; BB:*o[X]+=(X==2?t[X]*5:t[X]); goto HA; TA:++X; goto at; ZZ:; }
printf(&y[Z(11)],R,E,G,O,N,T,b,M); if(x(0,1))goto I; R:if(R<14)V(37); if(z) { z=0; l:{ if (k()) { if (x(0,9) > 4) { V(52);
@@ -55,11 +53,11 @@ case 7:V(83); M-=10; goto Z; case 8:V(86); R-=30; G-=20; O-=40; V
case 3:goto J; N:goto Q; case 4:i=17; } } case 2:V(5); } goto k; u:if(M<1951||W){ goto
W; } W=1;
if(!d&&!x(0,4)){ V(75); d=1; R+= 50; }
if(!x(0,3)){ w(x(0,4)?84:x(0,4)?33:34) e:if(O>39){ goto xx; vv:v=0; goto mm; d:{ if(!v)goto TT; goto P; } } goto U; } if (x(0,9) < 5) w:V(35); c=1; M-=101; ++E; k:M-=10; W:if(x(0,1)){ if (d) V(39); if(e)V(25); } while(i)heaven:{ w(i) } if (!B&&(f||
if(!x(0,3)){ w(x(0,4)?84:x(0,4)?33:34) e:if(O>39){ goto xx; vv:v=0; goto mm; d:{ if(!v)goto TT; goto P; } } goto U; } if (x(0,9) < 5) w:V(35); c=1; M-=101; ++E; k:M-=10; W:if(x(0,1)){ if (d) V(39); if(e)V(25); } while(i)heaven:{ w(i) goto _; } if (!B&&(f||
a)){ if(d&&a) V(91); if(T<666){ goto QQ; KK:Q=a?1:Q; h=f?1:h; f=a=0; V(93); T-=666; } else{ goto KK; } JJ:; } b-=f?15
:h?5:0; b-=a?5:Q?15:0; M+=170; M+=O> 99 ? 30:- 99;
b-=10; goto z; J:V(a=54); } goto k; MM
:goto k; default: if(q>10) { goto k; } if(q>7) { if(N<5) { w(99) goto M; G:goto yy; } V(13); N-=5; } goto Z; _:goto rr; S:if (E>1999){ w(27) I:goto a; } V(82); M-=9; N-=5; R-=20; goto Z;
:goto k; default: if(q>10) { goto k; } if(q>7) { if(N<5) { w(99) goto M; G:goto yy; } V(13); N-=5; } goto Z; _:goto rr; goto _; S:if (E>1999){ w(27) goto _; I:goto a; } V(82); M-=9; N-=5; R-=20; goto Z;
} M-=17; goto Z; case 14:V(74); goto Z; case 15:V(x(0,1)?69:68);
goto Z; ha:V(78); if(k()){ goto go; to:; } else { goto ii; jj:; } goto o; case 11:goto V; case
12:V(94); M-=5; b-=19; N -= 5; goto Z; tt:goto Y; case 0:V(20); Z:; } if(O>39&&!x(0,9)){goto O; xx:V(e=x(0,1)?18:19); O -= 40; goto q; } E:if(M<951) goto W; if (G < 36){ goto b; } if (x(0,9) > 2) goto n; V(96); if (x(0,1)) { goto p; Q:for (X=
2024/ferguson1/prog.gotos.c
+32 -32
View File
@@ -4,39 +4,39 @@
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<unistd.h>
long x(long y, long z){ return rand()%(z-y+1)+y; }
unsigned m,D,Q,v,l,f,X,z,B,i,h,
r,u,d,e; long
O,R,E,G,O,N, T,R,A,I,L,*o[]={ &O,&R,&E,&G,&O,&N} ,a,t[7],q,M, b=666,c,W; char *y,*p; FILE*K; size_t J;
unsigned m,D,Q,v,l,f,X,z,B,i,h, r,u,d,e; long
O,R,E,G,O,N, T,R,A,I,L,*o[]={ &O,&R,&E,&G,&O,&N} ,a,t[7],q,M, b=666,c,W; char *y; FILE*K; size_t J;
#define w(i) { V(i); V(4); goto hell; goto M; }
long Z(long x){ return x * 1663; }
#define S(x,z) while(scanf(&y[Z(x)],&z)!=1)while(getchar()!='\n');
void V(long x){printf("%s",&y[Z(x)]);}long k(){return E>0?x(0,99)>49:0;}int main(){switch(1){j:if(z)goto A;E*=5;B:
printf(&y[Z(12)],T);if(z){goto f;}goto PP;default:srand(time(0));K=fopen(DATA,"r");if(!K||getdelim(&y,&J,EOF,K)<0)goto
hell; goto M;OO:if(b<1){if(a){w(40)PP:goto G;}if(f)w(41)w(45)g:goto S;}w(M>2169?47:45)
hell:return
666;rr:;goto CC;yy:{if(b<1||M<0||M>2169){goto _;F:V(51);R+=18;goto L;}goto i;P:for(X=1;X<--(unsigned){7};){goto kk;
BB:*o[X]+=(X==2?t[X]*5:t[X]);goto HA;TA:++X;goto at;ZZ:;}printf(&y[Z(11)],R,E,G,O,N,T,b,M);if(x(0,1))goto I;R:if(R<14)V(37);
if(z){z=0;l:{if(k()){if(x(0,9)>4){V(52);R+=23;if(!x(0,9)){goto r;L:goto II;}c:;}else{goto F;r:goto c;qq:{V(53);goto zz;}II:;}}
else{goto qq;}zz:E-=9;M-=45;}goto C;y:V(42);S(2,r)switch(r){M:V(1);v:memset(&t,0,sizeof t);goto N;D:{if(k()){goto dd;ii:V(f=79);
b-=80;T/=4;goto jj;ee:;}else{goto oo;dd:V(a=29);T+=70;goto ee;x:V(X+--(unsigned){6});if(z){S(3,t[X])if(t[X]<0||t[X]>
666 ){V(14); goto x; goto
heaven ;ET:L-=t[u]; goto XT;}L=T;for(u=0;u<6;++u){goto ET;XT:;}if(L<0){V(46);memset(&t,0,sizeof t);goto v;}}
else{S(3,*(o[X]))if(*o[X]<0||*o[X]>
666) {V(14);goto x;}
void V(long x){printf("%s",&y[Z(x)]);}long k(){return E>0?x(0,99)>49:0;}int main(){switch(1){j:if(z)goto A;E*=5;B:printf(&y[Z(12)],
T);if(z){goto f;}goto PP;default:srand(time(0));K=fopen(DATA,"r");if(!K||getdelim(&y,&J,EOF,K)<0)
goto hell;goto M;OO:if(b<1){if(a){w(40)PP:goto G;}if(f)w(41)w(45)g:goto S;}w(M>2169?47:45)hell:return
666;rr:;goto CC; yy:{if(b<1||M<0||M>2169){goto _;F:V(51);R+=18;goto L;}goto i;P:for(X=1;X<--(unsigned){7};){goto kk;BB:*o[X]+=
(X==2?t[X]*5:t[X]);goto HA;TA:++X;goto at;ZZ:;}printf(&y[Z(11)],R,E,G,O,N,T,b,M);if(x(0,1))goto I;R:if(R<14)V(37);if(z){z=0;l:{
if(k()){if(x(0,9)>4){V(52);R+=23;if(!x(0,9)){goto r;L:goto II;}c:;}else{goto F;r:goto c;qq:{V(53);goto zz;}II:;}}else{goto qq;}zz:
E-=9;M-=45;}goto C;y:V(42);S(2,r)switch(r){M:V(1);v:memset(&t,0,sizeof t);goto N;D:{if(k()){goto dd;ii:V(f=79);b-=80;T/=4;goto jj;
ee:;}else{goto oo;dd:V(a=29);T+=70;goto ee;x:V(X+--(unsigned){6});if(z){S(3,t[X])if(t[X]<0||t[X]>
666){V(14);goto x;goto
heaven;ET:L-=t[u];goto XT;}L=T;for(u=0;u<6;++u){goto ET;XT:;}if(L<0){V(46);memset(&t,0,sizeof t);goto v;}}else{S(3,*(o[X]))if(*o[X]
<0||*o[X]>
666){V(14);goto x;}
T=1666-O-R-E-G-0-N;if(T<0){V(46);O=R=E=G=N=0;goto v;LL:*o[X]=0;uu:++X;goto ZZ;}}goto bb;}}goto s;case 3:goto X;case 1:z=1;M-=45;
goto v;case 2:goto T;}goto y;O:{V(e=19);O-=40;R+=40;}goto E;i:if(O<1){goto d;}else{goto vv;mm:;}goto P;go:V(81);R+=9;N+=3;goto
to;}else{goto y;HA:T-=X[t];goto TA;A:for(X=1;X<6;){goto BB;kk:if(*o[X]<0)goto LL;goto uu;QQ:V(B=38);goto JJ;at:;}goto B;}T:l=1;
if(E<9){goto h;}else{goto l;h:V(16);goto C;DD:goto u;}C:l=0;f:z=0;X:if(R<1){goto e;U:w(24)K:R-=R>23?23:R>18?18:R>13?13:R;goto Y;
TT:V(v=15);O=0;goto P;}else{goto K;}goto tt;Y:switch(q=x(0,22)){case 1:V(95);R+=5;goto Z;case 18:V(26);goto Z;case 13:V(28);goto Z;
case 2:O-=40;V(71);goto Z;case 3:V(a=76);b-=70;goto W;case 4:V(77);N-=7;M-=7;goto Z;case 5:case 10:if(q<6){goto ha;m:V(56);goto D;
CC:goto OO;o:;}else{goto m;oo:V(f=62);M-=50;b-=35;s:;}goto Z;a:goto H;case 9:case 19:V(30);goto Z;case 20:V(32);goto Z;case 21:V(31);goto Z;case 6:goto g;case 16:case 22:V(49);goto Z;case 17:V(72);goto Z;case 7:V(83);M-=10;goto Z;case 8:V(86);R-=30;G-=20;O-=40;V
:switch(x(1,9)){case 2:if(q>9){switch(x(1,2)){q:R+=40;goto Y;case 1:{switch(x(2,5)){case 2:V(a=54);goto MM;b:w(48)case 3:goto J;N:
goto Q;case 4:i=17;}}case 2:V(5);}goto k;u:if(M<1951||W){goto W;}W=1;if(!d&&!x(0,4)){V(75);d=1;R+= 50;}if(!x(0,3)){w(x(0,4)?84:x(0,4)?33:34)e:if(O>39){goto xx;vv:v=0;goto mm;d:{if(!v)goto TT;goto P;}}goto U;}if(x(0,9)<5)w:V(35);c=1;M-=101;++E;k:M-=10;W:if(x(0,1)){
if(d)V(39);if(e)V(25);}while(i)heaven:{w(i)}if(!B&&(f||a)){if(d&&a)V(91);if(T<666){goto QQ;KK:Q=a?1:Q;h=f?1:h;f=a=0;V(93);T-=666;}
else{goto KK;}JJ:;}b-=f?15:h?5:0;b-=a?5:Q?15:0;M+=170;M+=O>99?30:-99;b-=10;goto z;J:V(a=54);}goto k;MM:goto k;default:if(q>10){
goto k;}if(q>7){if(N<5){w(99)goto M;G:goto yy;}V(13);N-=5;}goto Z;_:goto rr;S:if(E>1999){w(27)I:goto a;}V(82);M-=9;N-=5;R-=20;goto Z;
}M-=17;goto Z;case 14:V(74);goto Z;case 15:V(x(0,1)?69:68);goto Z;ha:V(78);if(k()){goto go;to:;}else{goto ii;jj:;}goto o;case 11:
goto V;case 12:V(94);M-=5;b-=19;N-=5;goto Z;tt:goto Y;case 0:V(20);Z:;}if(O>39&&!x(0,9)){goto O;xx:V(e=x(0,1)?18:19);O-=40;goto q;}
E:if(M<951)goto W;if(G<36){goto b;}if(x(0,9)>2)goto n;V(96);if(x(0,1)){goto p;Q:for(X=1;X<6;++X){goto x;bb:;}goto j;}V(97);M-=60;
goto n;H:goto R;p:if(x(0,9)<3)goto t;V(21);M-=99;goto n;t:V(22);M-=85;n:if(m){goto DD;}m=1;if(x(0,9)>5)goto w;V(23);z:;}if(A++<21)
goto yy;goto _;}}
goto v;case 2:goto T;}goto y;O:{V(e=19);O-=40;R+=40;}goto E;i:if(O<1){goto d;}else{goto vv;mm:;}goto P;go:V(81);R+=9;N+=3;goto to;
}else{goto y;HA:T-=X[t];goto TA;A:for(X=1;X<6;){goto BB;kk:if(*o[X]<0)goto LL;goto uu;QQ:V(B=38);goto JJ;at:;}goto B;}T:l=1;if(E<9)
{goto h;}else{goto l;h:V(16);goto C;DD:goto u;}C:l=0;f:z=0;X:if(R<1){goto e;U:w(24)K:R-=R>23?23:R>18?18:R>13?13:R;goto Y;TT:V(v=15);
O=0;goto P;}else{goto K;}goto tt;Y:switch(q=x(0,22)){case 1:V(95);R+=5;goto Z;case 18:V(26);goto Z;case 13:V(28);goto Z;case 2:O-=40;
V(71);goto Z;case 3:V(a=76);b-=70;goto W;case 4:V(77);N-=7;M-=7;goto Z;case 5:case 10:if(q<6){goto ha;m:V(56);goto D;CC:goto OO;o:;}
else{goto m;oo:V(f=62);M-=50;b-=35;s:;}goto Z;a:goto H;case 9:case 19:V(30);goto Z;case 20:V(32);goto Z;case 21:V(31);goto Z;case 6:
goto g;case 16:case 22:V(49);goto Z;case 17:V(72);goto Z;case 7:V(83);M-=10;goto Z;case 8:V(86);R-=30;G-=20;O-=40;V:switch(x(1,9)){
case 2:if(q>9){switch(x(1,2)){q:R+=40;goto Y;case 1:{switch(x(2,5)){case 2:V(a=54);goto MM;b:w(48)case 3:goto J;N:goto Q;case 4:i=17;
}}case 2:V(5);}goto k;u:if(M<1951||W){goto W;}W=1;if(!d&&!x(0,4)){V(75);d=1;R+=50;}if(!x(0,3)){w(x(0,4)?84:x(0,4)?33:34)e:if(O>39){
goto xx;vv:v=0;goto mm;d:{if(!v)goto TT;goto P;}}goto U;}if(x(0,9)<5)w:V(35);c=1;M-=101;++E;k:M-=10;W:if(x(0,1)){if(d)V(39);if(e)V(25)
;}while(i)heaven:{w(i)goto _;}if(!B&&(f||a)){if(d&&a)V(91);if(T<666){goto QQ;KK:Q=a?1:Q;h=f?1:h;f=a=0;V(93);T-=
666;}else{goto KK;}JJ:;}b-=f?15:h?5:0;b-=a?5:Q?15:0;M+=170;M+=O>99?30:-99;b-=10;goto z;J:V(a=54);}goto k;MM:goto k;default:if(q>10)
{goto k;}if(q>7){if(N<5){w(99)goto M;G:goto yy;}V(13);N-=5;}goto Z;_:goto rr;goto _;S:if(E>1999){w(27)goto _;I:goto a;}V(82);M-=9;
N-=5;R-=20;goto Z;}M-=17;goto Z;case 14:V(74);goto Z;case 15:V(x(0,1)?69:68);goto Z;ha:V(78);if(k()){goto go;to:;}else{goto ii;jj:;}
goto o;case 11:goto V;case 12:V(94);M-=5;b-=19;N-=5;goto Z;tt:goto Y;case 0:V(20);Z:;}if(O>39&&!x(0,9)){goto O;xx:V(e=x(0,1)?18:19);
O-=40;goto q;}E:if(M<951)goto W;if(G<36){goto b;}if(x(0,9)>2)goto n;V(96);if(x(0,1)){goto p;Q:for(X=1;X<6;++X){goto x;bb:;}goto j;}
V(97);M-=60;goto n;H:goto R;p:if(x(0,9)<3)goto t;V(21);M-=99;goto n;t:V(22);M-=85;n:if(m){goto DD;}m=1;if(x(0,9)>5)goto w;V(23);z:;}
if(A++<21)goto yy;goto _;}}