diff --git a/2001/anonymous/.gitignore b/2001/anonymous/.gitignore index 67f3bd25f..cc12d6363 100644 --- a/2001/anonymous/.gitignore +++ b/2001/anonymous/.gitignore @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ anonymous anonymous.ten +cpp diff --git a/2001/anonymous/Makefile b/2001/anonymous/Makefile index e4232e6cb..a98cbfd8c 100644 --- a/2001/anonymous/Makefile +++ b/2001/anonymous/Makefile @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ CINCLUDE= # Optimization # -OPT= -O1 +OPT= # Default flags for ANSI C compilation # @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ ENTRY= anonymous PROG= ${ENTRY} # OBJ= ${PROG}.o -DATA= anonymous.ten.c +DATA= TARGET= ${PROG} # ALT_OBJ= @@ -142,6 +142,15 @@ ${PROG}: ${PROG}.c $$magic $$warning -Dmagic= $$X "-DX=A($$magic \"$$X\")" \ $< -o $@ ${LIBS} +${PROG}.ten: ${PROG}.ten.c + @echo "NOTE: this program must be compiled as 32-bit to use with the entry itself." + @echo "if you want to use it where this is not possible e.g. with a Mac try, say to" + @echo "use by itself, try:" + @echo + @echo " ${CC} $< -o $@" + @echo + ${CC} ${CFLAGS} -m32 $< -o $@ ${LIBS} + # alternative executable # alt: data ${ALT_TARGET} diff --git a/2001/anonymous/README.md b/2001/anonymous/README.md index 016d4e15d..6ecc506bc 100644 --- a/2001/anonymous/README.md +++ b/2001/anonymous/README.md @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ # Most likely to amaze - The author wishes to remain anonymous - Great Britain +The author wishes to remain anonymous +Great Britain ## To build: @@ -15,17 +15,21 @@ make ./anonymous program ``` -NOTE: this entry seems to no longer work. [Cody Boone -Ferguson](/winners.html#Cody_Boone_Ferguson) has offered some tips in the +NOTE: [Cody Boone Ferguson](/winners.html#Cody_Boone_Ferguson) fixed the +supplementary program which is necessary to test the program. He C pre-processed +and cleaned it up as well as commented it some as it heavily uses the ternary +operator and recursive calls. It is not consistent but if you look at it you +should understand why that is! Thank you Cody for your assistance! He notes +however that this entry seems to no longer work and has offered some tips in the [bugs.md](/bugs.md) file for anyone who mights want to try and fix this but it -seems to require a lot of parsing, debugging, an x86 system and possibly knowing -the internals of the ELF format (x86 specific). You need to run the program on a -binary to test. See the try section below for a program that, if you get the -entry to work, would be okay to test it on. Thank you and we will happily credit -you if you fix this. +does seem to require a lot of parsing, debugging, an x86 system and possibly +knowing the internals of the ELF format (x86 specific if there are any?). You +need to run the program on a binary to test. See the try section below for the +above mentioned program that you can test the entry on. Thank you and we will +happily credit you if you fix this. -WARNING: if you do get this to work it will destroy files that it is used on. -See the author's warning on this. +WARNING: if you do get this to work **IT WILL _DESTROY FILES__ that it is used +on!** See the author's warning on this. ## Try: @@ -46,7 +50,8 @@ quite a lot of bit twiddling. This program is an optimizing dynamic binary translator, allowing you to run x86 programs on any machine (x86 or otherwise). -I have included a simple "10 green bottles" program, already compiled +I have included a simple [10 green +bottles](https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/school-radio/nursery-rhymes-ten-green-bottles/zncyt39) program, already compiled for the x86. The program 'ten', and its source (dull) are given as info files. Warning: note that the translator screws around with the binary you run on it, *will* corrupt the binary to some extent, and may leave @@ -88,75 +93,75 @@ switches such that while compiling the program it generates one error compiler errors while it is running (yes, the program can generate compiler errors while it is running). If you do not wish to see this error, or if the program generates any further error when compiled using -your C compiler please remove the "warning=..." line from the build -script. +your C compiler please remove the `-Dwarning='-Dprocessor'` line and the +`$$warning` from the compiler invocation. -### Optimization: +### Optimization -The build script contains a "-O1" switch for the compiler. Increasing +The build script contains a `-O1` switch for the compiler. Increasing the optimization level will make the program run *slower*, while compiling the program without any optimization will allow it to run *faster*. -### Obfuscation: +### Obfuscation -The most obvious part of the obfuscation is probably the mess of defines -at the top. This may seem a somewhat tired old obfuscation - however -since many of these macros are (sometimes only) used by the program once -it has dynamically recompiled itself, they are only referenced within -the source code from within strings - and therefore the macros cannot be -expanded. Furthermore, some of these strings of code are not given as -strings, but instead are wrapped up in macros that use the "#" -preprocessor operator to turn them into strings. In the hope throwing a -few C beautifiers the macro to generate the strings is not contained -within the source code but instead is passed in on the command line. +The most obvious part of the obfuscation is probably the mess of defines at the +top. This may seem a somewhat tired old obfuscation - however since many of +these macros are (sometimes only) used by the program once it has dynamically +recompiled itself, they are only referenced within the source code from within +strings - and therefore the macros cannot be expanded. Furthermore, some of +these strings of code are not given as strings, but instead are wrapped up in +macros that use the `#` preprocessor operator to turn them into strings. In the +hope of throwing off a few C beautifiers the macro to generate the strings is +not contained within the source code but instead is passed in on the command +line. Buried under all this, and the fact that the entire program is just a -call to exit, there are some nice subtle little obfuscations. For +call to `exit()`, there are some nice subtle little obfuscations. For example, you may notice that there are a couple of macros that use the -"##" preprocessor operator to build pairs of functions. One of these +`##` preprocessor operator to build pairs of functions. One of these macros is used to build to pairs of functions of which only one has local variables which shadow global variables; so one modifies the global state, and the other doesn't. -There is also quite a nice trick where I wave a magic wand, and a chunk -of code which should only be run when the program is run for the first -time (setting the PC to point at main, etc) gets turned into a -frog^M^M^M^Mstring. The C compiler sees a string by itself in the code, -thinks "yup, that's a valid C expression", and quietly moves on to the -next line of code. +There is also quite a nice trick where I wave a magic wand, and a chunk of code +which should only be run when the program is run for the first time (setting the +[PC / IP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_counter) to point at `main()`, +etc) gets turned into a `frog^M^M^M^Mstring`. The C compiler sees a string by +itself in the code, thinks "yup, that's a valid C expression", and quietly moves +on to the next line of code. -### Limitations: +### Limitations -Due to space limitations only a handful of instructions are supported, -those instructions which are supported may supported in somewhat -non-conventional ways, chunks of the architecture (e.g. flags) are just +Due to space limitations only a handful of instructions are supported; +these instructions which are supported are supported in somewhat +non-conventional ways: chunks of the architecture (e.g. flags) are just ignored, the elf loader does not really load the elf binary, the target library linking can only pass up to 3 parameters to the target library -function, etc, etc, etc. +function, etc. In short, please consider this a full disclaimer for any bug that may turn up - yes the program is unsafe, but it's pretty cool anyway. -Despite all this, the translator is not exclusively limited to running -the 'ten' program. Other trivial x86 programs may run on the translator -\- and I have successfully run a wide range of HelloWorld programs, -including one of last years IOCCC winners, 'tomx'. +Despite all this, the translator is not exclusively limited to running the +[anonymous.ten](anonymous.ten.c) program. Other trivial **_x86_** programs may +run on the translator \- and I have successfully run a wide range of "Hello +World" programs, including one of last years IOCCC winners, +[tomx](/2000/tomx/tomx.c). -### Complete Program: +### Complete Program -The fact that the program makes calls to system and execv may imply that -it is not a complete program in its own right, as it relies on other -programs. The call to system is a call to ask gcc to recompile the -translator with a new set of switches, and the call to execv asks for -the newly compiled program to be executed. I would point out that -almost every other entry to this competition also require a C compiler -(well, the published winners at any rate, and I recognize that a few -don't). There is little real difference between this program and one -like last years entry 'dhyang'; both are just C programs that generate C -code as their output. +The fact that the program makes calls to `system()` and `execv()` may imply that +it is not a complete program in its own right, as it relies on other programs. +The call to `system()` is a call to ask gcc to recompile the translator with a +new set of switches, and the call to `execv()` asks for the newly compiled +program to be executed. I would point out that almost every other entry to this +competition also require a C compiler (well, the published winners at any rate, +and I recognize that a few don't). There is little real difference between this +program and one like last years entry [dhyang](/2000/dhyang/dhyang.c); both are +just C programs that generate C code as their output. -Enjoy, thanks! +Enjoy and thanks! ## Copyright and CC BY-SA 4.0 License: diff --git a/2001/anonymous/anonymous.ten.c b/2001/anonymous/anonymous.ten.c index e80570852..e04589bd9 100644 --- a/2001/anonymous/anonymous.ten.c +++ b/2001/anonymous/anonymous.ten.c @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ +#include #define PLURAL(bottles) bottles==1?"bottle":"bottles" void sing(int bottles) { diff --git a/2001/anonymous/cpp.c b/2001/anonymous/cpp.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4f3688612 --- /dev/null +++ b/2001/anonymous/cpp.c @@ -0,0 +1,346 @@ +#include +#include +#include +#include + +#define l int* +#define F char + +struct stat t; +#define c return +#define I (P+=4,*L(P-4,0)) +#define G (signed F)E(*L(P++,0)) +#define C(O,D) E (D[B+V(010)/4+O*10]) +#define U R[4]=E(V(17)-4),*(l)V(021)= + +char M [99],Q[99],b[15000],*ss,*d=b, *z; + +#define O =(n=*(l)V(021),R[4]=E(V(17)+4),n) +#define p(a,b,c) system((sprintf(a,b,k[1]),c)),z +#define g (y/010&7) +#define R (B+13) +#define x86 (F*)index(ss+V(i ),0100) + +#define D(y,n,a,m,i,c) d += \ + sprintf(d, \ + y,n,a,m,i,c ), \ + (F* ) P + +int* B,i,n,a,r,y,P ; +V(v){ + return E(B[v]) /* end E() */; +} + + +int *Li(d,r) +{ + return E (3[B+ + V(010) /* end V() */ + /4+r*10] + ) && + E (3 [B+ + V(010) /* end V() in E() */ + /4+r*10]) /* end E() */ + + <=d ? + (int*)(((int)B) + d + + E(4[B+ + V (010) /* end V() in E() */ + /4+r*10]) /* end E() */ - + E (3[B + + V(010) /* end V() in E() */ + /4+r*10]) /* end E() */ + ) : + (((int)B)^d)>>24&&--r? + Li(d,r) /* end Li() */: + (int*)d; +} + +int *L(d, r){ + return r = + V(014 ) /* end V() */& + 63, + Li(d,r) /* end Li() */ + ; +} +int *Runi(d,a) +{ + return (ss = strcmp((char*)B+ + E (4[B+ + V(010)/* end V() *//4+ + (V(12) /* end V() */ + >>16)*10])+ + E(0[B+ + V(010) /* end V() */ + /4+--r*10]), /* end E() */ + ".strtab") /* end strcmp() */ ? + ss:(char*)B+ + E (4[B+ + V(010) /* end V() in E() */ + /4+r*10]) /* end E() */ , + E (1[B+ + V(010) /* end V() in E() */ + /4+r*10]) /* end E() */ - + 2) ? + Runi(d,r) : + 0; +} + +int *Run(d, a) +{ + return r= + V(014 ) /* end V() */ + &63, + Runi(d,a); +} + +Sca() +{ + i=((a-=16)+ + E (4[B + + V (010) /* end V() in E() */ + /4+r*10]) /* end E() */ + + )/4, + (V(-~i) /* end V() */ + -P+2 ? + Sca() : + 0 + ); + +} +Scan() +{ + a= + E(5[B+ + V(010) /* end V() */ + /4+r*10]) /* end E() */ + , Sca(); +} +ru() +{ + i=((a-=16)+ + E(4[B+ + V(010) /* end V() */ / + 4+r*10]) /* end E() */ + )/4, + (strcmp(ss + + V(i), + "main") /* end strcmp() */ ? + ru() : + 0) + ; +} + +run(){ + a= + E(5[B + + V(010) /* end V() in E() */ + /4+r*10]) /* end E() */, + ru(); +} +E(DX) +{ + return *z /* z at this point appeared to be '\002' if I (Cody) recalls correctly */ ? + DX : DX <<030 | + (DX&65280)<<010 | + DX>>8 & 65280 | + DX>>24&0377; +} + +int* K(k) +{ + return L( + E( + k [ + (int*)V(17) /* end V() in E() in L() */ + ]) /* end E() in L() */ , + 0) /* end L() */; +} + +int +main (int cka, char **k) { char *ck = (char *)cka; + exit( + E((ck + ?main((z? + (stat(M,&t)? + P+=a+'{'?0 + :3 + :execv(M,k), + + a=(signed char) + E( + *L(P++,0) + ), + i=P, + y=(signed char) + E( + *L(P++,0) + )&255, + sprintf(Q,y/'@'-3?"*L(V(%d+%d)+%d,0)":"R[%d]",(y&7),'\r',y/0100-1?0 + : + (signed char)E( + *L(P++,0) + )), + (a+127 && + a+'}' && + a+1 ? + (a+61 && + a + 24 && + a + + 025 ? + (P=a+'H' && + a%061 <=0 ? + P :i , + d += sprintf + (d,a>0 ? + " R[%d]=E(~-E(R[%d])),\0 U R[%d],\0 R[%d] O,\0 U %d,\0R[%d]=0,"+(a&'8')*3:a <- 'c'?" %d, %c%s = R[%d], \0 %d, *R=%c%s==R[%d], \0 R[%d]=(int)%c%s,"-a%'w'%'j'*5:"%d,%d,%s=%d,", + a>0 ? + a-'h' ? + a-49 ? + a&7 : + (y/010&7) + :(P +=4, + *L(P-4,0) + ):(y/010&7), + a>0 ? + a&7 : + "& "[a%3%2+1], + a + 72 ? + Q : + "*R", a>0 | a<-99 ? + (y/010&7) : + (P+=4, + *L(P-4,0)), + 0) + + ,(char*)P) : + (P=i, + i = a + 61 ? + a +21? + E((P+=4, + *L(P-4,0))) : + (signed char) E( + *L(P++,0)) : + 0, + d += sprintf( d,a%' '+29+"P O,\0 U %d,P=%d," + , P, + P+i, + 0, + 0, + 0), + + (char* )P, + system(( + sprintf + (d, + "A'", + k[1]), + b) + ), + z) + ) : + (n = + (y/010&7) - 4 + ? (y/010&7)% + 5-1 ? + a+127 ? + (signed char)E( + *L(P++,0)) : + (P+=4, + *L(P-4,0) + ) : 0 : + (Scan(), + *( + (char*)index + (ss+ + V(i ), + 0100) ? + (char*) index (ss+ + V(i ), + 0100) : d) = + 0, + (int) (ss+ + V(i) + )), + (y/010&7) % + 5<2 ? + d += sprintf(d, + (y/010&7) % + 5 + ?" %s=E(~-E(%s)), \0 U %s," + + 4* + (y/010&7): + "%s=E(E(%s)%c%d),", + Q, + Q, + "+ - "[(y/010&7)], + n, + 0), + + + (char* )P : + ( a= (signed char)E( + *L(P++,0) /* end *L() */ + ) /* end E */ - + 'u' ? + '!' : + '=', + d += + sprintf(d, + (y/010&7) + - 4 + ? "P=%d%c=%s?%d:%d,": + "*R=E(((int(*)(l,l,l))%s)(K(1),K(2),K(3))),P O," + ,n,a,Q,P,P+ + (signed char)E( + *L(P++,0) /* end *L() */ + ) /* end E */ + ) /* end sprintf */ + + ,(char* ) P, + system( + (sprintf (d, + "A'", + k[1] + ), + b)) /* end system */ + ,z)))) + : + (Run + ((z=(char*)&ck,stat(k[1],&t),B=(int*)mmap(0,i=t.st_size,3,1,open(k[1],2),0)) + ) /* end Run() */ + ,(( + (B+13)[4] = + E(B+i/4) /* end E() */ + ,run(), /* end run() */ + P=V(-~i), /* end V() */ + (B+13)[4] = + E ( + V(17) /* end V() */ + -4 + ), /* end E() */ + *(int*) + V(021) /* end V() */ + = 0)), + sprintf(M, + ".%s%d",k[1], + P) /* end sprintf() */, + d += + sprintf(d,"%s %s '-DX=A(%s)' -o %s '-Dmagic=","cpp -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -Winfinite-recursion -Wno-bitwise-conditional-parentheses -Wno-error -Wno-implicit-function-declaration -Wno-implicit-int -Wno-int-to-pointer-cast -Wno-macro-redefined -Wno-pedantic -Wno-pointer-to-int-cast -Wno-return-type -Wno-string-plus-int -Wno-bitwise-op-parentheses -Wno-format -Wno-format-extra-args -Wno-int-conversion -Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-unsequenced -ggdb3 -E \"-DA(X)=#X\"","anonymous.c","cpp -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -pedantic -Winfinite-recursion -Wno-bitwise-conditional-parentheses -Wno-error -Wno-implicit-function-declaration -Wno-implicit-int -Wno-int-to-pointer-cast -Wno-macro-redefined -Wno-pedantic -Wno-pointer-to-int-cast -Wno-return-type -Wno-string-plus-int -Wno-bitwise-op-parentheses -Wno-format -Wno-format-extra-args -Wno-int-conversion -Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-unsequenced -ggdb3 -E \"-DA(X)=#X\"", + M, + fflush(0) + ) /* end sprintf() */ + + ,(char* )P) + ),k): + system( + (sprintf(M, + "rm -f .%s*", + k[1]), + M)/* end sprintf() in system() */ + ),z,*(B+13) + ) /* end ck?main()... in exit() */ + ) /* end E() in exit() */ + ); /* end exit() */ +} /* end main() */ diff --git a/bugs.md b/bugs.md index b54593530..2707cacca 100644 --- a/bugs.md +++ b/bugs.md @@ -1042,34 +1042,80 @@ might or might not help but he too could not get it to work. Tips from Cody: -- Try a beautifier on the original C code. -- Use cpp to make the functions easier to parse. For instance if you're in the -directory try `cpp -E anonymous.c > anonymous.cpp` and look at that file to see -the functions. It might or might not be helpful to use cpp on the beautified -source. -- After beautifying it try changing references of the macros (where not too -complicated) to their definitions. For instance in vim you might do: -`:%s/\/int */g` and then delete the line that was changed to `#define int * -int*` (or else do a range substitute so it's not changed). You might not need -this if you use the cpp. This might be useful anyway to more easily test things. -- If your system has a `setarch` tool that might or might not be of help (I'm -not too familiar with its internals). -- The code appears to do everything from one call to `exit(3)` but it makes use -of the ternary operator and possibly the comma operator. -- Check the Makefile for the defines but also observe that those are in the -source file. It appears that the entry might try compiling as well but that's -from a quick glance. - The original main() started like: `main (char *ck, char **k)` but we made it compilable for clang by changing it to be: `main (int cka, char **k) { char *ck = (char *)cka;` which might or might not be good. + +- `gcc` reports an infinite recursive call of `main()`. My (Cody's) guess is +that this is the root of the problem of the crash but it might be other things. +I'm not sure how to stop this from happening. This happens before and after the +above fix for `clang`! + +- Try a beautifier on the original C code. This might or might not work; see +next point. + +- Use `cpp -E` (see [cpp.c](2001/anonymous/cpp.c)) and clean it up first. I +(Cody) did this for convenience though there are still macros. This is because +it was done via a hackish make rule: + + cpp: ${PROG}.c + @echo "NOTE: this entry seems to no longer work." + magic='cpp ${CFLAGS} -E'; \ + X='-DA(X)=#X'; \ + $$magic -Dmagic= $$X "-DX=A($$magic \"$$X\")" \ + $< ${LIBS} > anonymous.cpp.c + + +- (If beautifying) After beautifying it try changing references of the macros +(where not too complicated) to their definitions. For instance in vim you might +do: `:%s/\/int */g` and then delete the line that was changed to `#define +int * int*` (or else do a range substitute so it's not changed). You might not +need this if you use the cpp. This might be useful anyway to more easily test +things. + +- If your system has a `setarch` tool that might or might not be of help (I'm +not too familiar with its internals). + +- The code appears to do everything from one call to `exit(3)` but it makes use +of the ternary operator and possibly the comma operator Check the Makefile for +the defines but also observe that those are in the source file. It appears that +the entry might try compiling as well but that's from a quick glance. + - The author warns that only simple source (once compiled) would work so make use of the provided source file [2001/anonymous/anonymous.ten.c](2001/anonymous/anonymous.ten.c). To compile try `make anonymous.ten` from the entry directory which you can then run the entry on. Note that it needs to be compiled as a x86 program. -- The program will to an extent destroy files it is used on. See the author's -warning in their comments on that. +- The `Tr` macro appears (at a glance when very tired) to create another +function and when C pre-processed it seems like at least the function `L()` is +there twice. However this is actually a bit different: one is `L##i()` and the +other is `L()`. `L##i()` calls itself and `L()` calls `L##i()`. You might have luck +renaming it e.g. `Li()` instead but I (Cody) had some problems renaming some of +these functions (some but not all). + +- Pray, cast a spell or just wish yourself good luck, depending on your +beliefs/personality/whatever! :-) It seems you'll need it! :-) (and also :-( ) + +Here are some additional warnings on different platforms: + +```c +anonymous.c:12:13: warning: operation on 'P' may be undefined [-Wsequence-point] + #define I (P+=4,*L(P-4,0)) + ^ +``` + +With `gdb` I determined that in the function `Runi()` appears to be NULL. I'm +not sure if this is relevant or not. + +With `gdb` it appears that the crash happens with: + +``` +V (v@entry=) at anonymous.c:44 +44 return E (B[v]); +``` + +(see [cpp.c](cpp.c)). ## [2001/bellard](2001/bellard/bellard.c) ([README.md](2001/bellard/README.md)) ## STATUS: probable bug (possibly depending on system) - please help test and if necessary fix @@ -1229,13 +1275,16 @@ it. [Yusuke Endoh](/winners.html#Yusuke_Endoh) [wrote a little bit about it](https://mame-github-io.translate.goog/ioccc-ja-spoilers/2001/anonymous.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp) that might or might not help but he too could not get it to work. -Tips from Cody: +WARNING: the program will to an extent destroy files it is used on! See the +author's warning in their comments on that. + +Some tips from Cody: - Try a beautifier on the original C code. - Use cpp to make the functions easier to parse. For instance if you're in the directory try `cpp -E anonymous.c > anonymous.cpp` and look at that file to see the functions. It might or might not be helpful to use cpp on the beautified -source. +source. `cc -E` might or might not be useful as well. - After beautifying it try changing references of the macros (where not too complicated) to their definitions. For instance in vim you might do: `:%s/\/int */g` and then delete the line that was changed to `#define int * @@ -1243,21 +1292,34 @@ int*` (or else do a range substitute so it's not changed). You might not need this if you use the cpp. This might be useful anyway to more easily test things. - If your system has a `setarch` tool that might or might not be of help (I'm not too familiar with its internals). -- The code appears to do everything from one call to `exit(3)` but it makes use -of the ternary operator and possibly the comma operator. +- The code appears to do everything from one call to `exit(3)` which actually +calls `main()` itself (is this part of the problem? We don't know) but it makes +use of the ternary operator and possibly the comma operator (hard to parse +without much formatting that's not been done). - Check the Makefile for the defines but also observe that those are in the source file. It appears that the entry might try compiling as well but that's from a quick glance. -- The original main() started like: `main (char *ck, char **k)` but we made it -compilable for clang by changing it to be: `main (int cka, char **k) { char *ck -= (char *)cka;` which might or might not be good. +- The original `main()` started like: `main (char *ck, char **k)` but we (Landon +and Cody both had the same idea but Landon made the commit before Cody could) +made it compilable for clang by changing it to be: `main (int cka, char **k) { +char *ck = (char *)cka;` which might or might not be good. - The author warns that only simple source (once compiled) would work so make use of the provided source file -[2001/anonymous/anonymous.ten.c](2001/anonymous/anonymous.ten.c). To compile try -`make anonymous.ten` from the entry directory which you can then run the entry -on. Note that it needs to be compiled as a x86 program. -- The program will to an extent destroy files it is used on. See the author's -warning in their comments on that. +[2001/anonymous/anonymous.ten.c](2001/anonymous/anonymous.ten.c) that Cody bug +fixed (which is necessary for it to work). To compile try `make anonymous.ten` +from the entry directory which you can then run the entry on. Note that it needs +to be compiled as a x86 program so the Makefile uses `-m32`. This will likely +not work in macOS as Apple has unfortunately made it very hard to compile 32-bit +code. With Apple's silicon chip it will be impossible as the architecture is +entirely incompatible. We don't know if the original program needs to be 32-bit +compiled nowadays but since the author said it can run on other platforms we +have **NOT** made it use `-m32`. We give instructions on how to compile +[anonymous.ten](2001/anonymous/anonymous.ten.c) without specifying 32-bit, in +the Makefile, when trying to compile it. + +Cody also recommends that one try breaking apart the `exit()` called in `E` +which calls `main()` call and if possible breaking `main()` into more than one +function (this might not be possible) into several. ## [2001/bellard](2001/bellard/bellard.c) ([README.md](2001/bellard/README.md))