From 1dffd992262ef583d1b72bc7faf15d446fd10453 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Cody Boone Ferguson <53008573+xexyl@users.noreply.github.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 14:08:33 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Format fixes in html files in 2011
---
2011/fredriksson/README.md | 29 ++++++++++++++---------------
2011/fredriksson/index.html | 26 ++++++++++++++------------
2011/hamaji/README.md | 2 +-
2011/hamaji/index.html | 2 +-
2011/richards/README.md | 4 ++--
2011/richards/index.html | 4 ++--
2011/toledo/README.md | 1 +
2011/toledo/index.html | 4 ++--
8 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
diff --git a/2011/fredriksson/README.md b/2011/fredriksson/README.md
index 894c4e132..2b2e3c06a 100644
--- a/2011/fredriksson/README.md
+++ b/2011/fredriksson/README.md
@@ -149,10 +149,10 @@ Just say
### Limitations and remarks
* Using warning options (such as `-Wall`) when building gives a lot of warning,
- such as `suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||'`, `value computed is
- not used`, `implicit declaration of function 'putchar'`, `implicit
- declaration of function 'getchar'`, `control reaches end of non-void
- function` and `format not a string literal and no format arguments`.
+ such as "`suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||'`", "`value computed is
+ not used`", "`implicit declaration of function 'putchar'`", "`implicit
+ declaration of function 'getchar'`", "`control reaches end of non-void
+ function`" and "`format not a string literal and no format arguments`".
Please ignore them all, since they just try to tell you that the source
is obfuscated.
@@ -184,17 +184,16 @@ Just say
for each char, and that a C compiler is on `$PATH`; the latter is hard coded
to be 'gcc', but any compiler would work, provided that it supports
C99, or long lines as an extension. This code has been tested on:
+ - GNU/Linux FC4, i386, gcc
+ - GNU/Linux FC7, x86_64, gcc 4.1.2, tcc 0.9.24 and icc 10.0 (Btw, tcc has
+ its roots in IOCCC...)
+ - GNU/Linux FC9, x86_64, gcc 4.?.?
+ - GNU/Linux CentOS 5, gcc 4.1.2
+ - GNU/Linux Ubuntu 11.04, gcc 4.5.2
+ - SunOS 5.8, UltraSPARC IIIi, gcc 4.1.2
+ - SunOS 5.9, UltraSPARC IIIi, gcc 4.1.1 and Sun ONE Studio 8 CC
+ - AIX 5.3, IBM eServer p5-550, gcc 3.3.3 and AIX CC Version 6
-- GNU/Linux FC4, i386, gcc
-- GNU/Linux FC7, x86_64, gcc 4.1.2, tcc 0.9.24 and icc 10.0
-- GNU/Linux FC9, x86_64, gcc 4.?.?
-- GNU/Linux CentOS 5, gcc 4.1.2
-- GNU/Linux Ubuntu 11.04, gcc 4.5.2
-- SunOS 5.8, UltraSPARC IIIi, gcc 4.1.2
-- SunOS 5.9, UltraSPARC IIIi, gcc 4.1.1 and Sun ONE Studio 8 CC
-- AIX 5.3, IBM eServer p5-550, gcc 3.3.3 and AIX CC Version 6
-
- (Btw, tcc has its roots in IOCCC...)
### NOTICE to those who wish for a greater challenge:
@@ -254,7 +253,7 @@ If you get stuck, come back and read below for additional hints and information.
* It also shows the power of boolean logic and bitwise arithmetic.
* This is the first (?) entry in the history of IOCCC, that cannot be
- totally de-obfuscated by the author. This is due to the clever choice of
+ totally deobfuscated by the author. This is due to the clever choice of
the actual algorithm, that is obfuscated by nature, and it is an open
research problem whether a simpler algorithm exists, with the same time
complexity.
diff --git a/2011/fredriksson/index.html b/2011/fredriksson/index.html
index cba588ce5..6c6c984e2 100644
--- a/2011/fredriksson/index.html
+++ b/2011/fredriksson/index.html
@@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ threshold, and search for “ioccc”, with option -vk5Limitations and remarks
Using warning options (such as -Wall) when building gives a lot of warning,
-such as suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||', value computed is not used, implicit declaration of function 'putchar', implicit declaration of function 'getchar', control reaches end of non-void function and format not a string literal and no format arguments.
+such as “suggest parentheses around '&&' within '||'”, “value computed is not used”, “implicit declaration of function 'putchar'”, “implicit declaration of function 'getchar'”, “control reaches end of non-void function” and “format not a string literal and no format arguments”.
Please ignore them all, since they just try to tell you that the source
is obfuscated.
Only standard input is handled. And only if stdin comes from a file,
@@ -534,16 +534,18 @@ handle this just fine even in C89 mode, though.
The code should be reasonably portable, it assumes standard ASCII codes
for each char, and that a C compiler is on $PATH; the latter is hard coded
to be ‘gcc’, but any compiler would work, provided that it supports
-C99, or long lines as an extension. This code has been tested on:
GNU/Linux FC4, i386, gcc
GNU/Linux FC7, x86_64, gcc 4.1.2, tcc 0.9.24 and icc 10.0
GNU/Linux FC9, x86_64, gcc 4.?.?
GNU/Linux CentOS 5, gcc 4.1.2
GNU/Linux Ubuntu 11.04, gcc 4.5.2
SunOS 5.8, UltraSPARC IIIi, gcc 4.1.2
SunOS 5.9, UltraSPARC IIIi, gcc 4.1.1 and Sun ONE Studio 8 CC
AIX 5.3, IBM eServer p5-550, gcc 3.3.3 and AIX CC Version 6
-(Btw, tcc has its roots in IOCCC…)
+- GNU/Linux FC4, i386, gcc
+- GNU/Linux FC7, x86_64, gcc 4.1.2, tcc 0.9.24 and icc 10.0 (Btw, tcc has
+its roots in IOCCC…)
+- GNU/Linux FC9, x86_64, gcc 4.?.?
+- GNU/Linux CentOS 5, gcc 4.1.2
+- GNU/Linux Ubuntu 11.04, gcc 4.5.2
+- SunOS 5.8, UltraSPARC IIIi, gcc 4.1.2
+- SunOS 5.9, UltraSPARC IIIi, gcc 4.1.1 and Sun ONE Studio 8 CC
+- AIX 5.3, IBM eServer p5-550, gcc 3.3.3 and AIX CC Version 6
+
NOTICE to those who wish for a greater challenge:
If you want a greater challenge, don’t read any further:
@@ -596,7 +598,7 @@ variable definitions)
It also shows the power of boolean logic and bitwise arithmetic.
This is the first (?) entry in the history of IOCCC, that cannot be
-totally de-obfuscated by the author. This is due to the clever choice of
+totally deobfuscated by the author. This is due to the clever choice of
the actual algorithm, that is obfuscated by nature, and it is an open
research problem whether a simpler algorithm exists, with the same time
complexity.
diff --git a/2011/hamaji/README.md b/2011/hamaji/README.md
index fc549e3bd..05fb6c5fc 100644
--- a/2011/hamaji/README.md
+++ b/2011/hamaji/README.md
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ This program solves [Nonograms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonogram) which is
also known as "Paint by Numbers".
This entry roars as the Year of the Dragon: A year considered
-some to be good luck. Well it was certainly true that the
+by some to be good luck. Well it was certainly true that the
IOCCC was lucky to get such a fine submission!
The source code is a solution to a Paint by Numbers puzzle when you
diff --git a/2011/hamaji/index.html b/2011/hamaji/index.html
index ca2182f51..bc27099ed 100644
--- a/2011/hamaji/index.html
+++ b/2011/hamaji/index.html
@@ -426,7 +426,7 @@ Location: JP - Japan
This program solves Nonograms which is
also known as “Paint by Numbers”.
This entry roars as the Year of the Dragon: A year considered
-some to be good luck. Well it was certainly true that the
+by some to be good luck. Well it was certainly true that the
IOCCC was lucky to get such a fine submission!
The source code is a solution to a Paint by Numbers puzzle when you
paint by C. Try your hand at solving a few of the other .nono
diff --git a/2011/richards/README.md b/2011/richards/README.md
index 14c4c708f..442bc13cc 100644
--- a/2011/richards/README.md
+++ b/2011/richards/README.md
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ You will probably get warnings while compiling the code. In particular:
* I don't include any headers I don't strictly need to, so you'll get warnings
about (at least) `memcpy()`, `isdigit()`, `atoi()`, `calloc()`, `malloc()`
and `alloca()` if you didn't use `-DAH`.
- - NOTE from judges: we added these includes in 2023.
+ - **NOTE from judges**: we added these includes in 2023.
* GCC likes to complain about `while (a = b)` (assignments as a condition).
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ Platforms which work but not at all optimization levels or needing special
flags:
* owcc 1.9 + x86 + Windows: Needs `-DNM -DAH -fno-stack-check`
- * gcc 4.4.5 + sh4: -O0 works, higher optimization levels don't work for unknown reasons.
+ * gcc 4.4.5 + sh4: `-O0` works, higher optimization levels don't work for unknown reasons.