2024/ferguson1 bug fix, make goto complete (149)

A bug was discovered in prog.c (now prog.alt2.c, see below) that has been fixed. It was not a critical bug but it came about when juggling things during development, and fixing it means there should now only be one place where an event might not trigger (or actually it's an event within an event that does not trigger - polymorphism related). The prog.c is the goto complete version - what was once prog.goto.max.c (git status is confused however - it shows that that file is now prog.alt2.c but actually prog.alt2.c is what prog.c was). For practical reasons (and to make the judges not weep and curse me quite as much) this was not the prog.c but since some others have made corrections to their winning code I have decided to do the same thing here. It was a hassle to juggle between the different versions and I ran out of the number of files allowed - that is what I mean by practical reasons. The prog.c has maintained its thematic 4666 bytes, after some formatting updates. Typo fixes were made in some of the supplementary C files. Makefile updated so that one can compile prog.alt2.c. .entry.json, index.html and obfuscation.html were all updated. The judges' remarks were slightly corrected. It is not 134 (now 149) jumps that occurs but rather gotos. The jumps can be over 1000, in fact one test run was over 1400, although shorter games can be fewer (though still a lot). Other errors in documentation that were artefacts from earlier stages in development were also corrected, although I'm sure there are more (the ones that were discovered were ones near to stats that had to be updated).
2025-08-13 08:14:05 -07:00
1 parent a1c86c8a7a
commit ad622a5354
@@ -38,12 +38,12 @@
            "entry_text" : "alternate source code"
        },
        {
-            "file_path" : "prog.goto.max.c",
+            "file_path" : "prog.alt2.c",
            "inventory_order" : 40,
            "OK_to_edit" : true,
            "display_as" : "c",
            "display_via_github" : true,
-            "entry_text" : "entry source code with maxed out gotos"
+            "entry_text" : "original source code with minor bug fix"
        },
        {
            "file_path" : "prog.orig.c",
@@ -17,10 +17,11 @@ data.scrnshot
 lencount
 mbcheck
 printer
 prog.alt
 prog.alt2
 prog.alt2.asc
 prog.alt2.scrnshot
 prog.alt.asc
 prog.alt.scrnshot
 prog.asc
 prog.goto.max
 prog.goto.max.asc
 prog.goto.max.scrnshot
 prog.scrnshot
@@ -154,12 +154,12 @@ TARGET= ${PROG} ${PROG}.asc ${PROG}.scrnshot
 # .alt is as above more events
 #
-ALT_OBJ= ${PROG}.alt.o ${PROG}.alt.asc.o ${PROG}.alt.scrnshot.o ${PROG}.goto.max.o \
+ALT_OBJ= ${PROG}.alt.o ${PROG}.alt.asc.o ${PROG}.alt.scrnshot.o \
-	 ${PROG}.goto.max.asc.o ${PROG}.goto.max.scrnshot.o
+	 ${PROG}.alt2.o ${PROG}.alt2.asc.o ${PROG}.alt2.scrnshot.o
-ALT_TARGET= ${PROG}.alt ${PROG}.alt.asc ${PROG}.alt.scrnshot ${PROG}.goto.max \
+ALT_TARGET= ${PROG}.alt ${PROG}.alt.asc ${PROG}.alt.scrnshot \
-	    ${PROG}.goto.max.asc ${PROG}.goto.max.scrnshot
+	${PROG}.alt2 ${PROG}.alt2.asc ${PROG}.alt2.scrnshot
-# list any data files supplied with the submission
+# The following notes were provided by the author in his Makefile:
 #
 # Don't include data, data.asc or data.scrnshot.
 # The data rule (although it's better to use makedata the data rule might work -
@@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ test: lencount mbcheck
 	@./lencount -t -i data.scrnshot.src
 	@./mbcheck
-# ASCII only version of submission code, hence why the DATA macro is defined
+# ASCII only version of entry code, hence why the DATA macro is defined
 # here, not in CDEFINE.
 #
 ${PROG}.asc: ${PROG}.c
@@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ addpadding: addpadding.c
 bytecount: bytecount.c
 	${CC} ${CFLAGS} -Wno-unreachable-code-break bytecount.c -o $@ ${LDFLAGS}
-# this tool helped me verify the locations of strings were correct (locations
+# this tool helped verify the locations of strings were correct (locations
 # are based on the blocksize). The bytecount also helped.
 #
 bytetest: bytetest.c
@@ -258,17 +258,18 @@ bytetest: bytetest.c
 byteread: byteread.c
 	${CC} ${CFLAGS}  byteread.c -o $@ ${LDFLAGS}
-# this tool was helpful to help identify if any emojis in the ASCII only version
+# this tool was earlier used to help in identifying any emojis in the ASCII only
-# slipped through (however, mbcheck is a better one: this tool is still
+# version that might have slipped through (however, mbcheck is a better one: this tool is still
-# useful however). Probably only the judges will find this interesting just like
+# useful however). Mostly provided for the judges but I, the author, included
-# most of the tools I have provided.
+# most of the tools (most of which are meant only for the judges as well).
 #
 bytecheck: bytecheck.c
 	${CC} ${CFLAGS} -Wno-unreachable-code-break bytecheck.c -o $@ ${LDFLAGS}
 # by default this checks for multibyte characters (well 2, 3, 4) in the ASCII
 # data source file, reporting if any are found. If any are found it will report
-# which string so it can be fixed.
+# which string so it can be fixed. This is used as part of the build process,
 # and if any are found it will fail to compile (or it should).
 #
 mbcheck: mbcheck.c
 	${CC} ${CFLAGS} -Wno-unreachable-code-break mbcheck.c -o $@ ${LDFLAGS}
@@ -290,7 +291,8 @@ printer: printer.c
 lencount: lencount.c
 	${CC} ${CFLAGS} -Wno-unreachable-code-break lencount.c -o $@ ${LDFLAGS}
-
+# The author provided these notes in his Makefile:
 #
 # IMPORTANT NOTES FOR THE JUDGES.
 #
 # The makedata.sh script will generate files that are needed by some of the
@@ -320,9 +322,13 @@ padding: addpadding test
 	./addpadding
 	@echo "Done."
 # The author provided these remarks in his Makefile:
 #
 # see remarks.md for more details. This script is mostly useful for the some of
-# the other tools but it can be used for prog.c and prog.alt.c indirectly as it
+# the other tools but it can be used for prog.c and prog.alt.c (and prog.alt2.c
-# also does build the data files from the source files.
+# which is the originally submitted code but with a minor bug fix - prog.alt.c
 # was already taken) indirectly as it also does build the data files from the
 # source files.
 #
 # An example use of when I personally use this rule: when I actually make an
 # edit to the data source files. As you will probably have noticed the printer.c
@@ -345,6 +351,7 @@ ${PROG}.alt: ${PROG}.alt.c
 	${MAKE} padding
 	${CC} ${CFLAGS} -DDATA='"data"' ${PROG}.alt.c -o $@ ${LDFLAGS}
 # ASCII only version of alt code (Devil's Cut above). This is why indeed the
 # DATA variable is not in the CDEFINE - the .asc versions use the data.asc file.
 #
@@ -352,17 +359,6 @@ ${PROG}.alt.asc: ${PROG}.alt.c
 	${MAKE} padding
 	${CC} ${CFLAGS} -DDATA='"data.asc"' ${PROG}.alt.c -o $@ ${LDFLAGS}
 # goto maxed out - regular data file
 #
 ${PROG}.goto.max: ${PROG}.goto.max.c
 	${MAKE} padding
 	${CC} ${CFLAGS} -DDATA='"data"' ${PROG}.goto.max.c -o $@ ${LDFLAGS}
 # goto maxed out - ASCII only data file
 #
 ${PROG}.goto.max.asc: ${PROG}.goto.max.c
 	${MAKE} padding
 	${CC} ${CFLAGS} -DDATA='"data.asc"' ${PROG}.goto.max.c -o $@ ${LDFLAGS}
 # screenshot friendly version of alt code
 #
@@ -370,11 +366,30 @@ ${PROG}.alt.scrnshot: ${PROG}.alt.c
 	${MAKE} padding
 	${CC} ${CFLAGS} -DDATA='"data.scrnshot"' ${PROG}.alt.c -o $@ ${LDFLAGS}
-# goto maxed out - screenshot friendly version
+# For practical reasons, the author submitted code that was not as full of gotos
 # as he had in mind. After the win he decided to add it to the repo. But since
 # there was already an alt.c file this original code, which has a minor bug fix,
 # is in .alt2.c.
 #
-${PROG}.goto.max.scrnshot: ${PROG}.goto.max.c
+
 # Original submitted code with a minor bug fix
 #
 ${PROG}.alt2: ${PROG}.alt2.c
 	${MAKE} padding
-	${CC} ${CFLAGS} -DDATA='"data.scrnshot"' ${PROG}.goto.max.c -o $@ ${LDFLAGS}
+	${CC} ${CFLAGS} -DDATA='"data"' ${PROG}.alt2.c -o $@ ${LDFLAGS}
 # Original submitted code with a minor bug fix - ASCII only version
 #
 ${PROG}.alt2.asc: ${PROG}.alt2.c
 	${MAKE} padding
 	${CC} ${CFLAGS} -DDATA='"data.asc"' ${PROG}.alt2.c -o $@ ${LDFLAGS}
 # Original submitted code with a minor bug fix - screenshot friendly version
 #
 ${PROG}.alt2.scrnshot: ${PROG}.alt2.c
 	${MAKE} padding
 	${CC} ${CFLAGS} -DDATA='"data.scrnshot"' ${PROG}.alt2.c -o $@ ${LDFLAGS}
 # data files
 #
@@ -29,8 +29,11 @@ YouTube show for this entry:
 ## Alternate code:
-The author provided two alternate versions, one which has more events and far
+The author provided two alt versions: one submitted with more events, though not
-fewer `goto`s and the other which maxed out the `goto`s at 149 (up from 134)!
+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
 practical reasons.
 ### Alternate build:
@@ -44,32 +47,36 @@ fewer `goto`s and the other which maxed out the `goto`s at 149 (up from 134)!
 ``` <!---sh-->
    ./prog.alt
    ./prog.alt2
 ```
 ## Judges' remarks:
-You will have to go to "Fun-Damentals" to understand the logic flow of
+You will have to go to "Fun-Damentals" to understand the logic flow of this
-this game. While you jump as many as 134 times to travel from `main()`
+game. While you goto as many as 149 times and jump hundreds or even over a
-to a successful `exit(666)` you may have a devil of a time trying to
+thousand times to travel from `main()` to a successful `exit(666)` you may have
-figure out how this program actually does what it does.
+a devil of a time trying to figure out how this program actually does what it
 does.
 Before you set off on your adventure to decode this program's logic, make
 sure you have enough food, ammo, clothes, oxen, and programming supplies.
 You’ll be driving for 2170 miles through a wild wilderness inspired
-by [Oregon Trail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Trail_&lpar;series&rpar;), so you’ll need to be prepared for anything! Regardless of
+by [Oregon
-how well prepared you are, you will have a devil of a time jumping around
+Trail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Trail_&lpar;series&rpar;), so
-inside this C code. :-)
+you’ll need to be prepared for anything! Regardless of how well prepared you
 are, you will have a devil of a time jumping around inside this C code. :-)
 ## Author's remarks:
 > Fun fact: after winning this, the author played the game in gdb from start to
 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 **985** (!)
+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 **776** jumps! The
+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, **has just 59 (!) lines of code**. A very tiny
+lines that have only variables, **has just 58 (!) 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. The [maxed out goto
 version](%%REPO_URL%%/2024/ferguson1/prog.goto.max.c) is far worse.
@@ -80,7 +87,7 @@ print them (and everything else). I have kept references to encryption in this
 file even after publication. I do have a copy of it if anyone is interested.
 <div id="devil">
-### A Pact With the Devil On the Oregon Trail (...and his 134 regrets of goto)
+### A Pact With the Devil On the Oregon Trail (...and his 149 regrets of goto)
 </div>
 The _Go To Hell In A Handcart Travel Company_ **PROUDLY** welcomes all sinners to
@@ -2161,8 +2168,9 @@ features versus problems, though possibly more exist.
 Obviously since you can buy oxen at the forts (something not possible in the
 original game for some reason) then even if you ran out (and perhaps you ate
-one) it could happen again. Remember you might end up eating an ox just because
+one, which of course is not in the original either) it could happen again.
-he looks at you funny, not just because you are out of food.
+Remember you might end up eating an ox just because he looks at you funny, not
 just because you are out of food!
 If you don't have an ox and you are out of food you die from starvation. But
 what happens when you die of starvation? Well it says:
@@ -2193,31 +2201,32 @@ to do much at all unless you had a great amount of it; which of course the
 player character (PC) does not.
 Actually the only reason: for the amusing rhyme that fits with the jokes,
-nothing else (it makes it more interesting and amusing than 'You ran out of food
+nothing else (but it *does* make it more interesting and amusing than 'You ran
-and starved to death', doesn't it?).
+out of food and starved to death', doesn't it?).
 The fact the original game does not have you decide on drinking water (and see
 section on other differences for the subject of decision making) means I could
 take some liberty with it. Besides, didn't I say you would learn by what did not
 happen? They certainly did drink water and unsafe water (I'm sure) too, so my
 joke is all the more appropriate (even if it's inappropriate in some company
-:-), perhaps your grandparents - although depending on your age now maybe not).
+:-), perhaps your grandparents - although depending on your age now maybe not.
 May my grandparents rest in peace, hopefully not with the devil).
 Sometimes it is suggested an ox is lost/whatever (not lost as in it wanders off
-but rather in the sense that you have fewer oxen) even if you don't have one. It
+but rather in the sense that you have fewer oxen, for instance getting stuck in
-does this in a number of ways like referring to the famous 'spared no expense'
+a river) even if you don't have one. It does this in a number of ways like
-from Jurassic Park. It also is a nod the IOCCC guidelines that talk about a fish
+referring to the famous 'spared no expense' from Jurassic Park. It also is a nod
-Eric that might or might not exist.
+the IOCCC guidelines that talk about a fish Eric that might or might not exist.
 I decided to not call him Eric because there is potential for more than one ox
 (you'll note in other messages I got past this issue by making it like in real
-life - wagon trains and large groups - though again some times wagon for the
+life - wagon trains and large groups - though again sometimes wagon for the
 joke - plus being ambiguous). Of course the narrator as the Devil is telling all
 sorts of lies too so that hardly matters.
 As for whether this could happen: in theory it could but if you run out of oxen
-you're not going to get very far anyway. In other cases, like eating an oxen,
+you're not going to get very far anyway. In other cases, like eating an ox, the
-the check is in place, although in retrospect it would be very amusing if it did
+check is in place, although in retrospect it would be very amusing if it did
 not. But that would still not be realistic and some of this has to be at least
 somewhat realistic.
@@ -2467,10 +2476,12 @@ 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
-134 after pre-processing! One of the alt versions I supplied is 131 before the
+149 after pre-processing! The second alt code is what I originally submitted as
-cpp and 149 after. I did not submit that for practical reasons but I kind of
+prog.c but after winning I made the more complete (149 gotos post cpp, 131 prior
-wish I had, now that it won. Nonetheless 134 is already way too many. 149 is
+to cpp) version (that was not submitted for practical reasons) the prog.c.
-much worse.
+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.
 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
@@ -2597,8 +2608,8 @@ It is **NOT** a bug when an ox kicks a bucket message that no oxen is decreased
 as it's a joke and merely a possible foreshadowing of what is to come. The
 message that they shouldn't try telling the narrator they don't have one (if
 they can even count) because it just kicked the bucket cleverly sidesteps (or
-does it sidekick?) that issue - it's not even meant to eliminate one as it was
+does it sidekick?) that issue - it's not even meant to eliminate one as if it
-kicking a bucket physically, not kicking the bucket figuratively (or in this
+was kicking a bucket physically, not kicking the bucket figuratively (or in this
 case it might also be literally - although paradoxically also not).
 It is **NOT** a bug that when you get dysentery you jump past the mountains
@@ -2609,7 +2620,12 @@ turn. Also this does mean that they 'lose a turn' which seems plausible. Look at
 it this way: those other events could also happen in the mountains, so it's not
 really an illogical choice anyway; the separation is there because they were not
 at the mountains immediately (obviously). I believe (not sure but I think) you
-can survive with dysentery if you have enough hp.
+can survive with dysentery if you have enough hp and turns. Now one might say
 that not going straight to the doctor might make more sense or rather one should
 go to the doctor (at the mountains, if they were there), and then back to the
 mountains. But this would cause other problems: for instance if one does not
 have enough money to pay for the doctor: say for instance seeing the message
 twice and also losing even more hp/mileage. That would be a broken design.
 On occasion an event might not fire (or rather it fires but nothing seems to
 happen). This is **NOT** a bug when it does. In fact it can be a lifesaver due
@@ -2627,7 +2643,7 @@ so that it directly assigns to `q` the value 11 (at least I think it was case 11
 \- it appears so). There are other ways to trigger this though, if you were to
 modify the code. Note that this does **NOT** mean that no events would fire. It
 just means you'll see what I mean more easily. Some events are triggered
-indirectly and others happen once you reach the mountains, for example.
+indirectly and others happen once you reach the mountains, for examples.
 Another one. In case you noticed the code:
@@ -2688,10 +2704,11 @@ wanted so THERE SIMPLY IS NO FLOW CONTROL ERROR.
 Of course not all the jokes are equal although they're almost all absurd in some
 way or another. Sometimes I manipulated the joke to fit into the code itself and
-vice versa. This was done numerous times in fact. The fact though that the
+vice versa. This was done numerous times in fact. The fact that the narrator is
-narrator is the devil means that some of that was not even necessary, given that
+the devil means that some of that was not even necessary, given that he (as I
-he (as I have shown in this file) cannot be trusted and says things that are
+have shown in this file) cannot be trusted and says things that are totally
-totally bogus and many that make absolutely no sense.
+bogus and many that make absolutely no sense...kind of like the entire theme of
 the game, but that only makes it more fun.
 The fact he refers to himself as if he's someone else is ludicrous on its own
 but there are so many other things. Those things I changed were good to change
@@ -3030,17 +3047,21 @@ 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 116 `goto`s, more than the BASIC game. 134 when pre-processed. But
+the abuse of <del>116</del> 131 `goto`s, more than the BASIC game.
-let's be honest, or 134 for a small C program is too many but to be only six
+<del>134</del> 149 when pre-processed. But
-fewer than a larger BASIC program? That is hard to fathom. Not that 116 is not
+let's be honest, or 131 for a small C program is too many but to be seven more
-too many for larger programs...or one goto, for that matter. As noted elsewhere,
+than the larger BASIC program? That is hard to fathom. Not that <del>116</del>
-an alt version has 131/149 gotos, before/after the cpp. I did not make it the
+131/149 is not too many for larger programs...or one goto, for that matter.
 main version when submitting because I did not want to make the judges weep and
 curse any more than they already had to (besides, it can't be 4666 bytes with
 the extra `goto`s) but now that it's in I have no qualms about providing it as
 alt code: if I am going to ruin `goto`s I might as well do it properly.
-Some things are clear about the program from visual inspection:
+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,
 who might easily be mistaken for the Devil) a little bit less. But really, if I
 am going to ruin `goto`s like I did: why should I not do it properly? So it's
 now maxed out with all the other [obfuscation](obfuscation.html) and the many
 events and fun gameplay.
 Anyway, some things are clear about the program from visual inspection:
 - it is clear the program does print SOME THINGS (but it is **NOT clear WHAT**
 is printed).
@@ -3157,23 +3178,24 @@ 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 116 (or 134) `goto`s. Or ten. Or five. Or
+But above all I would not have used <del>116</del> 131 (or <del>134</del> 149)
-even one. Better to let code generators like flex/bison take the crown. I have
+`goto`s. Or ten. Or five. Or even one. Better to let code generators like
-dethroned them though (at least from what I have seen before) - by a huge
+flex/bison take the crown. I have dethroned them though (at least from what I
-amount. But perhaps [1987/hines](https://www.ioccc.org/1987/hines/index.html)
+have seen before) - by a huge amount. But perhaps
-had the crown. It no longer does. I should be ashamed. I'm not.
+[1987/hines](https://www.ioccc.org/1987/hines/index.html) had the crown. It no
 longer does. I should be ashamed. I'm not. Devils feel no shame.
 But even if I were to abuse `goto` I would not normally use it in the ways I did, as
 noted earlier and in [obfuscation.html](obfuscation.html)!
 If I am ever dethroned, assuming I now have the crown as I think I do (and I
-hope I do because if I do not there is something very wrong), I will be
+hope and guess I do, even outside the IOCCC, because if I do not there is
-absolutely horrified.
+something very wrong), I will be absolutely horrified.
 Okay I'll be kind of amused too but I would be horrified. Still I guess in the
 context of the IOCCC I really have reached the logical conclusion of `goto`s
 (which, as you'll see, the 1987/hines one, was thought to be by the judges the
-logical conclusion - see below for more information on THAT and an exercise in
+'logical conclusion' - see below for more information on THAT and an exercise in
 absurdity), or at least I hope so.
 It's about time either way. Hopefully the judges will take `goto` and throw it
@@ -3231,10 +3253,12 @@ 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 134 enough, especially in a program that, counting spaces, including
+isn't <del>134</del> 149 enough, especially in a program that, counting spaces,
-unnecessary spaces to add to the size, is only 4666 bytes? It would be smaller
+including unnecessary spaces to add to the size, is only 4666 bytes? It would be
-except to stay on theme. Doing more would no longer be funny. Enough is enough.
+smaller except to stay on theme. Doing more would no longer be funny. Enough is
-Or at least I hope.
+enough.  Or at least I hope. Okay...actually I take that back. More would be
 funnier. But it would have sacrificed the rest of the game and that would be a
 tragedy.
 But it really is that extreme.
@@ -3263,7 +3287,9 @@ ineffable.
 Actually I wanted to see what it was like. It was VERY amusing - but only
 because I did not have to debug it. For the submission I included line changes
-for JUST the third prompt. Yes, what would only take a few seconds of play. It
+for JUST the third prompt (this means the prog.orig.c file: as noted I made the
 prog.c the complete version instead, and made prog.c as submitted the
 prog.alt2.c, after the win). Yes, what would only take a few seconds of play. It
 looked like this (I only did the third prompt as I had mere hours left to
 finish):
@@ -3281,14 +3307,14 @@ full sequence. This is from start to finish and I include it for your amusement
 (see [jumps.txt](jumps.txt) for the line changes including calls to prog.c
 functions). Or horror. There are a few times where the line
 is the same but that only shows how very often the line changes. It is a total
-of **985** (!) changes, counting function calls, and **776** (!) excluding
+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 59 (!) lines.
+`#include`s and only variables, has a mere 58 (!) lines.
-A program that has only 59 lines of code that jumps 985 (counting functions) or
+A program that has only 58 lines of code that jumps 1416 (counting functions) or
-776 (just in main()) times is astonishing. Of course that's not the
+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
 as well); the [obfuscation.html](obfuscation.html) shows even more on this - and
@@ -3308,14 +3334,14 @@ 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 134 `goto`s (and I could have
+It would have been SO MUCH EASIER if I did not use <del>134</del> 149 `goto`s.
-fit more in). Actually, even a
+Actually, even a tiny portion of that would make it harder. Nobody, whether
-tiny portion of that would make it harder. Nobody, whether they're in their
+they're in their right mind or not, would WANT to MAINTAIN this, or something
-right mind or not, would WANT to maintain this, or something even close to it.
+even close to it.  Feel free to pass on judgement to me. I welcome it! You have
-Feel free to pass on judgement to me. I welcome it! You have to be mad and
+to be mad and embrace it to do this. I went full out and I could have fit more
-embrace it to do this. I went full out and I could have fit more `goto`s in: not
+`goto`s in: not only is the iocccsize not 2503 (although it's close now) but I
-only is the iocccsize not 2503 but I could have removed some events if I really
+could have removed some events if I really wanted more `goto`s. That would be
-wanted more `goto`s.
+less fun.
 Even flex/bison code, which as far as I am aware uses FAR fewer `goto`s, is
 notorious for `goto`s and is quite hard to follow. It would be a nightmare to
@@ -3352,7 +3378,7 @@ made even a few more commits. As it is it took a full two months and I BARELY
 finished this. In fact I finished it within hours of the contest closing! It was
 not even 12 hours before closing time. I barely made it. Part of that is I added
 even more `goto`s, despite the fact I had reached 2503 in size, with careful
-size optimisation.
+size optimisation, though it got below that.
 Countless times I came up with ways to do more, at least where it was possible,
 such as freeing space so I could change some `break;`s to a `goto Z;` as `Z:`
@@ -3360,23 +3386,15 @@ was already there. The only other times this happened is before I had changed
 the code so much that you can no longer trust what a block of code is. Like I
 said, I could not really move any more code if I wanted to, even if I had more
 space free. Those very few places where the code could in theory be moved are
-already controlled by goto.
+already controlled by goto. The current `prog.c` has even more of this as it's
-
+the goto complete version.
 In fact I could have done more `goto`s in this version but I wanted to help the
 judges out in judging - that and it was easier to verify things are correct.
 `iocccsize` reports on prog.c 2457 and after I won this I kind of wish I did
 take it even further just to mess with everyone even more.
 But as I said elsewhere basically everything is in the wrong place so what even
-would be the point in doing that? It would probably not make it harder to follow
+would be the point if I had more space? It would probably not make it harder to follow
 (well it would but still would there be a point in it?); it would just make it
 even more absurd: the amount of spaghetti code makes it nigh impossible to
-follow and I'm happy to have smashed the record of 24 by 110 `goto`s, even if I
+follow and I'm happy to have smashed the record of 24 by <del>110</del> 125
-now wish I had gone even further.
+`goto`s.
 Nonetheless the 134 is what won so that's what I'll live by (and I doubt it'll
 be broken as this kind of trick will, as the general remarks about the entries
 note, not be as worthy, even if `goto`s are alas, not banned outright).
 Anyway, as I noted in [obfuscation.html](obfuscation.html), no initialisation is
 skipped in my jumps and that is what causes `goto` to invoke UB.
@@ -3456,8 +3474,8 @@ 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 134 (with the cpp, 116 without). That is
+a failure in using `goto`! My code has <del>134</del> 149 (with the cpp,
-obscene. I did not fail. At all.
+<del>116</del> 131 without). 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
@@ -3501,12 +3519,12 @@ 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 116 `goto`s with 134 when pre-processed
+Yes, yes...I know, I **KNOW** I put in <del>116</del> 131 `goto`s with
-and that is probably more extreme than any other C program, especially in such a
+<del>134</del> 149 when pre-processed and that is probably more extreme than any
-small program (and I REALLY hope I'm right there!). But **this does NOT matter**!
+other C program, especially in such a small program (and I REALLY hope I'm right
-Even if one or two were not harmful (but they are) it's jumping down a rabbit
+there!). But **this does NOT matter**!  Even if one or two were not harmful (but
-hole that can very easily get deeper and deeper just like Alice found. When
+they are) it's jumping down a rabbit hole that can very easily get deeper and
-there's no **NEED** for it it's much worse.
+deeper just like Alice found. When there's no **NEED** for it it's much worse.
 `goto`s are harmful and destroy flow control. I have shown a fair few obscure
 things about C, some which SEEM ILLEGAL but are not, but above all I have shown
@@ -3558,26 +3576,28 @@ 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 134 angels. YES I condemned 134 angels to eternal torment. I **HAD** to.
+killed <del>134</del> 149 angels. YES I condemned <del>134</del> 149 angels to
-I don't regret it - but you should, if you **ever** write something like this
+eternal torment. I **HAD** to.  I don't regret it - but you should, if you
-outside the IOCCC. In fact you should regret a single <del>goto</del> angel
+**ever** write something like this outside the IOCCC. In fact you should regret
-dying. Even if they did not go straight to hell in a handcart, you should still
+a single <del>goto</del> angel dying. Even if they did not go straight to hell
-regret it. But they do. Okay so I don't really believe that but there is no
+in a handcart, you should still regret it. But they do. Okay so I don't really
-denying there is goto hell here.
+believe that but there is no denying there is goto hell here.
-I found my abuse of `goto` hilarious. It was good intentions - the contest. But
+I <del>found</del> find my abuse of `goto` hilarious. It was good intentions -
-sadly sometimes the worst things that happen start with good intentions; and
+the contest. But sadly sometimes the worst things that happen start with good
-some of the best things strangely start with horrible intentions. It might be
+intentions; and some of the best things strangely start with horrible
-that I did this with good intentions for the contest but it would not be good
+intentions. It might be that I did this with good intentions for the contest but
-anywhere else. I would be beyond angry if I had to maintain this code. I would
+it would not be good anywhere else. I would be beyond angry if I had to maintain
-not blame anyone if they cursed me. I probably would be too. Not cursing you. I
+this code. I would not blame anyone if they cursed me. I probably would be too.
-mean cursing me.
+Not cursing you. I mean cursing me.
 Don't write code like this. Except for the IOCCC. Unless of course the judges
 decide they want no more `goto`s. I would not put that past them after what I
 have done. I can imagine them screaming and crying. Hopefully they're laughing
 at more than the jokes but I hope they laugh at this too. Well we'll see I
-guess...
+guess... (it appears that, based on the general remarks by the judges, of the
 winning entries, that `goto` will no longer hold nearly as much water, and that
 makes me happy).
 Frankly THIS PROGRAM SHOULD NOT WORK! But it does and it works well even if the
 flow-control is a horrible nightmare from hell. Perhaps the Devil truly has
@@ -7,11 +7,16 @@
 * Please note that the order of events (the q = x(0,23)) might be in a
 * different order than the prog.c as some were added quite late and I just
 * pushed them in in prog.c without much thinking (which actually caused some
- * problems that had to be fixed). I am not sure if that actually happened and
+ * problems that had to be fixed). In prog.c the event numbers are 0,22 (a bug
- * there might even be some missing events but just as a note.
+ * in the submitted code was fixed - the switch was x(0,23) but there is no case
 * 23 there) but here you see it's 0,23 and the order is different. The son
 * mocking you if you eat his frozen body is not tied to an event in prog.c but
 * it is here.
 *
- * You might notice that the prog.alt.c has some additional events but those are
+ * Actually this is closer to prog.alt.c in the sense that event 23 there also
- * not here.
+ * has the son ghost mocking the PC. The difference is prog.alt.c has an event
 * 24 and that is not here. This almost certainly has fewer gotos in code (if we
 * count the comments probably not).
 *
 * Finally this code is from an earlier version so some of it might be missing,
 * not just the events, and not just the gotos, but potentially other things
@@ -21,7 +26,8 @@
 *
 * WARNING: this code and its comments are not up to date. I wrote 116 before
 * filtered through the cpp and 134 after the cpp and I didn't wish to
- * repeatedly revisit this file trying to explain everything.
+ * repeatedly revisit this file trying to explain everything. As it is I barely
 * finished this in time.
 */
 #include<stdio.h>
 #include<string.h>
@@ -1,134 +1,131 @@
        goto hell; \
        goto M;    \
            goto A;
            goto f;
        goto PP;
            goto hell;
        goto M;
-                    goto hell;
+                w(40) PP : goto G;
-                    goto M;
+                w(41) w(45) g : goto S;
-                goto G;
+        goto CC;
-                    goto hell;
+            goto _;
-                    goto M;
+            goto L;
-                    goto hell;
+        goto i;
-                    goto M;
+            goto kk;
-                goto S;
+            goto HA;
-            goto hell;
+            goto at;
-            goto M;
+            goto I;
-        goto OO;
+                        goto r;
-                goto L;
+                        goto II;
-            goto i;
+                    goto F;
-                goto kk;
+                    goto c;
-                goto HA;
+                    goto zz;
-                goto at;
+                goto qq;
-                goto I;
+            goto C;
-                            goto r;
+                goto N;
-                            goto II;
+                    goto dd;
-                        goto F;
+                    goto jj;
-                        goto c;
+                    goto oo;
-                        goto zz;
+                    goto ee;
-                    goto qq;
+                            goto x;
-                goto C;
+                            goto heaven;
-                    goto N;
+                            goto XT;
-                        goto dd;
+                            goto ET;
-                        goto jj;
+                            goto v;
-                        goto oo;
+                            goto x;
-                        goto ee;
+                            goto v;
-                                goto x;
+                            goto ZZ;
-                                goto heaven;
+                    goto bb;
-                                goto XT;
+                goto s;
-                                goto ET;
+                goto X;
-                                goto v;
+                goto v;
-                                goto x;
+                goto T;
-                                goto v;
+            goto y;
-                                goto ZZ;
+            goto E;
-                        goto bb;
+                goto d;
-                    goto s;
+                goto vv;
-                    goto X;
+            goto P;
-                    goto v;
+            goto to;
-                    goto T;
+            goto y;
-                goto y;
+            goto TA;
-                goto E;
+                goto BB;
-                    goto d;
+                    goto LL;
-                goto P;
+                goto uu;
-                goto to;
+                goto JJ;
-                goto y;
+            goto B;
-                goto TA;
+            goto h;
-                    goto BB;
+            goto l;
-                        goto LL;
+            goto C;
-                    goto uu;
+            goto u;
-                    goto JJ;
+            goto e;
-                goto B;
+            goto Y;
-                goto h;
+            goto P;
-                goto l;
+            goto K;
-                goto e;
+        goto tt;
-                goto hell;
+            goto Z;
-                goto M;
+            goto Z;
-                goto Y;
+            goto Z;
-                goto P;
+            goto Z;
-                goto K;
+            goto W;
-            goto tt;
+            goto Z;
-                goto Z;
+                goto ha;
-                goto W;
+                goto D;
-                    goto ha;
+                goto OO;
-                    goto D;
+                goto m;
-                    goto m;
+            goto Z;
-                goto Z;
+            goto H;
-                goto H;
+            goto Z;
-                goto Z;
+            goto Z;
-                goto g;
+            goto Z;
-                goto Z;
+            goto g;
-                goto Z;
+            goto Z;
-                goto Z;
+            goto Z;
-                            goto Y;
+            goto Z;
-                                goto MM;
+                        goto Y;
-                                goto hell;
+                            goto MM;
-                                goto M;
+                            goto J;
-                                goto J;
+                            N : goto Q;
                                goto Q;
                        goto k;
                            goto W;
                                goto hell;
                                goto M;
                                goto q;
                                    goto TT;
                                goto P;
                            goto U;
                                goto hell;
                                goto M;
                                    goto QQ;
                                    goto KK;
                        goto z;
                    goto k;
                        goto W;
                            goto xx;
                            goto mm;
                                goto TT;
                            goto P;
                        goto U;
                                goto QQ;
                                goto KK;
                    goto z;
                goto k;
                goto k;
                    goto k;
-                        goto k;
+                        w(99) goto M;
-                                goto hell;
+                        goto yy;
                                goto M;
                            goto M;
                            goto yy;
                    goto Z;
                    goto rr;
                            goto hell;
                            goto M;
                        goto a;
                    goto Z;
                goto Z;
                goto rr;
                    w(27) I : goto a;
                goto Z;
-                    goto go;
+            goto Z;
-                    goto ii;
+            goto Z;
-                goto o;
+            goto Z;
-                goto V;
+                goto go;
-                goto Z;
+                goto ii;
-                goto Y;
+            goto o;
-                goto O;
+            goto V;
-                goto W;
+            goto Z;
-                goto b;
+            goto Y;
-                goto n;
+            goto O;
-                goto p;
+            goto q;
-                    goto x;
+            goto W;
-                goto j;
+            goto b;
            goto n;
-            goto R;
+            goto p;
-                goto t;
+                goto x;
-            goto n;
+            goto j;
-                goto u;
+        goto n;
-                goto w;
+        goto R;
            goto t;
        goto n;
            goto DD;
            goto w;
            goto yy;
        goto _;
@@ -486,31 +486,38 @@ YouTube show for this entry:</p>
 <h2 id="try">Try:</h2>
 <pre><code>    ./try.sh</code></pre>
 <h2 id="alternate-code">Alternate code:</h2>
-<p>The author provided two alternate versions, one which has more events and far
+<p>The author provided two alt versions: one submitted with more events, though not
-fewer <code>goto</code>s and the other which maxed out the <code>goto</code>s at 149 (up from 134)!</p>
+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
 practical reasons.</p>
 <h3 id="alternate-build">Alternate build:</h3>
 <pre><code>    make alt</code></pre>
 <h3 id="alternate-use">Alternate use:</h3>
-<pre><code>    ./prog.alt</code></pre>
+<pre><code>    ./prog.alt
    ./prog.alt2</code></pre>
 <h2 id="judges-remarks">Judges’ remarks:</h2>
-<p>You will have to go to “Fun-Damentals” to understand the logic flow of
+<p>You will have to go to “Fun-Damentals” to understand the logic flow of this
-this game. While you jump as many as 134 times to travel from <code>main()</code>
+game. While you goto as many as 149 times and jump hundreds or even over a
-to a successful <code>exit(666)</code> you may have a devil of a time trying to
+thousand times to travel from <code>main()</code> to a successful <code>exit(666)</code> you may have
-figure out how this program actually does what it does.</p>
+a devil of a time trying to figure out how this program actually does what it
 does.</p>
 <p>Before you set off on your adventure to decode this program’s logic, make
 sure you have enough food, ammo, clothes, oxen, and programming supplies.
 You’ll be driving for 2170 miles through a wild wilderness inspired
-by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Trail_(series)">Oregon Trail</a>, so you’ll need to be prepared for anything! Regardless of
+by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oregon_Trail_(series)">Oregon
-how well prepared you are, you will have a devil of a time jumping around
+Trail</a>, so
-inside this C code. :-)</p>
+you’ll need to be prepared for anything! Regardless of how well prepared you
 are, you will have a devil of a time jumping around inside this C code. :-)</p>
 <h2 id="authors-remarks">Author’s remarks:</h2>
 <blockquote>
 <p>Fun fact: after winning this, the author played the game in gdb from start to
 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>985</strong> (!)
+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>776</strong> jumps! The
+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>has just 59 (!) lines of code</strong>. A very tiny
+lines that have only variables, <strong>has just 58 (!) 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. The <a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/prog.goto.max.c">maxed out goto
 version</a> is far worse.</p>
@@ -520,7 +527,7 @@ encrypted one even encrypted emojis without having to decrypt them in order to
 print them (and everything else). I have kept references to encryption in this
 file even after publication. I do have a copy of it if anyone is interested.</p>
 <div id="devil">
-<h3 id="a-pact-with-the-devil-on-the-oregon-trail-and-his-134-regrets-of-goto">A Pact With the Devil On the Oregon Trail (…and his 134 regrets of goto)</h3>
+<h3 id="a-pact-with-the-devil-on-the-oregon-trail-and-his-149-regrets-of-goto">A Pact With the Devil On the Oregon Trail (…and his 149 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>
@@ -2201,8 +2208,9 @@ features versus problems, though possibly more exist.</p>
 </div>
 <p>Obviously since you can buy oxen at the forts (something not possible in the
 original game for some reason) then even if you ran out (and perhaps you ate
-one) it could happen again. Remember you might end up eating an ox just because
+one, which of course is not in the original either) it could happen again.
-he looks at you funny, not just because you are out of food.</p>
+Remember you might end up eating an ox just because he looks at you funny, not
 just because you are out of food!</p>
 <p>If you don’t have an ox and you are out of food you die from starvation. But
 what happens when you die of starvation? Well it says:</p>
 <pre><code>    🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦🪦
@@ -2227,27 +2235,28 @@ trail) almost certainly eat it first; and not only that but bread is not going
 to do much at all unless you had a great amount of it; which of course the
 player character (PC) does not.</p>
 <p>Actually the only reason: for the amusing rhyme that fits with the jokes,
-nothing else (it makes it more interesting and amusing than ‘You ran out of food
+nothing else (but it <em>does</em> make it more interesting and amusing than ‘You ran
-and starved to death’, doesn’t it?).</p>
+out of food and starved to death’, doesn’t it?).</p>
 <p>The fact the original game does not have you decide on drinking water (and see
 section on other differences for the subject of decision making) means I could
 take some liberty with it. Besides, didn’t I say you would learn by what did not
 happen? They certainly did drink water and unsafe water (I’m sure) too, so my
 joke is all the more appropriate (even if it’s inappropriate in some company
-:-), perhaps your grandparents - although depending on your age now maybe not).</p>
+:-), perhaps your grandparents - although depending on your age now maybe not.
 May my grandparents rest in peace, hopefully not with the devil).</p>
 <p>Sometimes it is suggested an ox is lost/whatever (not lost as in it wanders off
-but rather in the sense that you have fewer oxen) even if you don’t have one. It
+but rather in the sense that you have fewer oxen, for instance getting stuck in
-does this in a number of ways like referring to the famous ‘spared no expense’
+a river) even if you don’t have one. It does this in a number of ways like
-from Jurassic Park. It also is a nod the IOCCC guidelines that talk about a fish
+referring to the famous ‘spared no expense’ from Jurassic Park. It also is a nod
-Eric that might or might not exist.</p>
+the IOCCC guidelines that talk about a fish Eric that might or might not exist.</p>
 <p>I decided to not call him Eric because there is potential for more than one ox
 (you’ll note in other messages I got past this issue by making it like in real
-life - wagon trains and large groups - though again some times wagon for the
+life - wagon trains and large groups - though again sometimes wagon for the
 joke - plus being ambiguous). Of course the narrator as the Devil is telling all
 sorts of lies too so that hardly matters.</p>
 <p>As for whether this could happen: in theory it could but if you run out of oxen
-you’re not going to get very far anyway. In other cases, like eating an oxen,
+you’re not going to get very far anyway. In other cases, like eating an ox, the
-the check is in place, although in retrospect it would be very amusing if it did
+check is in place, although in retrospect it would be very amusing if it did
 not. But that would still not be realistic and some of this has to be at least
 somewhat realistic.</p>
 <p>Of course even if one runs out of oxen that would not mean they couldn’t make it
@@ -2460,10 +2469,12 @@ 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
-134 after pre-processing! One of the alt versions I supplied is 131 before the
+149 after pre-processing! The second alt code is what I originally submitted as
-cpp and 149 after. I did not submit that for practical reasons but I kind of
+prog.c but after winning I made the more complete (149 gotos post cpp, 131 prior
-wish I had, now that it won. Nonetheless 134 is already way too many. 149 is
+to cpp) version (that was not submitted for practical reasons) the prog.c.
-much worse.</p>
+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>
 <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
@@ -2570,8 +2581,8 @@ that much in one turn I think.</p>
 as it’s a joke and merely a possible foreshadowing of what is to come. The
 message that they shouldn’t try telling the narrator they don’t have one (if
 they can even count) because it just kicked the bucket cleverly sidesteps (or
-does it sidekick?) that issue - it’s not even meant to eliminate one as it was
+does it sidekick?) that issue - it’s not even meant to eliminate one as if it
-kicking a bucket physically, not kicking the bucket figuratively (or in this
+was kicking a bucket physically, not kicking the bucket figuratively (or in this
 case it might also be literally - although paradoxically also not).</p>
 <p>It is <strong>NOT</strong> a bug that when you get dysentery you jump past the mountains
 event and go straight to the doctor. This not only plays in the theme (wait and
@@ -2581,7 +2592,12 @@ turn. Also this does mean that they ‘lose a turn’ which seems plausible. Loo
 it this way: those other events could also happen in the mountains, so it’s not
 really an illogical choice anyway; the separation is there because they were not
 at the mountains immediately (obviously). I believe (not sure but I think) you
-can survive with dysentery if you have enough hp.</p>
+can survive with dysentery if you have enough hp and turns. Now one might say
 that not going straight to the doctor might make more sense or rather one should
 go to the doctor (at the mountains, if they were there), and then back to the
 mountains. But this would cause other problems: for instance if one does not
 have enough money to pay for the doctor: say for instance seeing the message
 twice and also losing even more hp/mileage. That would be a broken design.</p>
 <p>On occasion an event might not fire (or rather it fires but nothing seems to
 happen). This is <strong>NOT</strong> a bug when it does. In fact it can be a lifesaver due
 to all the hazards and especially as this has primarily to do with case 11 which
@@ -2594,7 +2610,7 @@ what I mean you can change the code:</p>
 - it appears so). There are other ways to trigger this though, if you were to
 modify the code. Note that this does <strong>NOT</strong> mean that no events would fire. It
 just means you’ll see what I mean more easily. Some events are triggered
-indirectly and others happen once you reach the mountains, for example.</p>
+indirectly and others happen once you reach the mountains, for examples.</p>
 <p>Another one. In case you noticed the code:</p>
 <pre><code>    case 4:i=17; } } case 2: V(5); } goto k;</code></pre>
 <p>You might think this is a bug but this is actually hilarious. Here is what will
@@ -2643,10 +2659,11 @@ is ENTIRELY unclear how the author is not confused. All I know is
 wanted so THERE SIMPLY IS NO FLOW CONTROL ERROR.</p>
 <p>Of course not all the jokes are equal although they’re almost all absurd in some
 way or another. Sometimes I manipulated the joke to fit into the code itself and
-vice versa. This was done numerous times in fact. The fact though that the
+vice versa. This was done numerous times in fact. The fact that the narrator is
-narrator is the devil means that some of that was not even necessary, given that
+the devil means that some of that was not even necessary, given that he (as I
-he (as I have shown in this file) cannot be trusted and says things that are
+have shown in this file) cannot be trusted and says things that are totally
-totally bogus and many that make absolutely no sense.</p>
+bogus and many that make absolutely no sense…kind of like the entire theme of
 the game, but that only makes it more fun.</p>
 <p>The fact he refers to himself as if he’s someone else is ludicrous on its own
 but there are so many other things. Those things I changed were good to change
 but the others did not have to change. Some did change anyway but some did not,
@@ -2907,16 +2924,19 @@ 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 116 <code>goto</code>s, more than the BASIC game. 134 when pre-processed. But
+the abuse of <del>116</del> 131 <code>goto</code>s, more than the BASIC game.
-let’s be honest, or 134 for a small C program is too many but to be only six
+<del>134</del> 149 when pre-processed. But
-fewer than a larger BASIC program? That is hard to fathom. Not that 116 is not
+let’s be honest, or 131 for a small C program is too many but to be seven more
-too many for larger programs…or one goto, for that matter. As noted elsewhere,
+than the larger BASIC program? That is hard to fathom. Not that <del>116</del>
-an alt version has 131/149 gotos, before/after the cpp. I did not make it the
+131/149 is not too many for larger programs…or one goto, for that matter.</p>
-main version when submitting because I did not want to make the judges weep and
+<p>As noted elsewhere, I originally submitted a slightly less goto complete
-curse any more than they already had to (besides, it can’t be 4666 bytes with
+version, with 116/134 gotos, before/after the cpp, which was due to practical
-the extra <code>goto</code>s) but now that it’s in I have no qualms about providing it as
+reasons, and to make the judges weep (and probably curse the Devil - and author,
-alt code: if I am going to ruin <code>goto</code>s I might as well do it properly.</p>
+who might easily be mistaken for the Devil) a little bit less. But really, if I
-<p>Some things are clear about the program from visual inspection:</p>
+am going to ruin <code>goto</code>s like I did: why should I not do it properly? So it’s
 now maxed out with all the other <a href="obfuscation.html">obfuscation</a> and the many
 events and fun gameplay.</p>
 <p>Anyway, some things are clear about the program from visual inspection:</p>
 <ul>
 <li>it is clear the program does print SOME THINGS (but it is <strong>NOT clear WHAT</strong>
 is printed).</li>
@@ -3013,20 +3033,21 @@ 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 116 (or 134) <code>goto</code>s. Or ten. Or five. Or
+<p>But above all I would not have used <del>116</del> 131 (or <del>134</del> 149)
-even one. Better to let code generators like flex/bison take the crown. I have
+<code>goto</code>s. Or ten. Or five. Or even one. Better to let code generators like
-dethroned them though (at least from what I have seen before) - by a huge
+flex/bison take the crown. I have dethroned them though (at least from what I
-amount. But perhaps <a href="https://www.ioccc.org/1987/hines/index.html">1987/hines</a>
+have seen before) - by a huge amount. But perhaps
-had the crown. It no longer does. I should be ashamed. I’m not.</p>
+<a href="https://www.ioccc.org/1987/hines/index.html">1987/hines</a> had the crown. It no
 longer does. I should be ashamed. I’m not. Devils feel no shame.</p>
 <p>But even if I were to abuse <code>goto</code> I would not normally use it in the ways I did, as
 noted earlier and in <a href="obfuscation.html">obfuscation.html</a>!</p>
 <p>If I am ever dethroned, assuming I now have the crown as I think I do (and I
-hope I do because if I do not there is something very wrong), I will be
+hope and guess I do, even outside the IOCCC, because if I do not there is
-absolutely horrified.</p>
+something very wrong), I will be absolutely horrified.</p>
 <p>Okay I’ll be kind of amused too but I would be horrified. Still I guess in the
 context of the IOCCC I really have reached the logical conclusion of <code>goto</code>s
 (which, as you’ll see, the 1987/hines one, was thought to be by the judges the
-logical conclusion - see below for more information on THAT and an exercise in
+‘logical conclusion’ - see below for more information on THAT and an exercise in
 absurdity), or at least I hope so.</p>
 <p>It’s about time either way. Hopefully the judges will take <code>goto</code> and throw it
 into the deepest bowels of the Earth.</p>
@@ -3074,10 +3095,12 @@ 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 134 enough, especially in a program that, counting spaces, including
+isn’t <del>134</del> 149 enough, especially in a program that, counting spaces,
-unnecessary spaces to add to the size, is only 4666 bytes? It would be smaller
+including unnecessary spaces to add to the size, is only 4666 bytes? It would be
-except to stay on theme. Doing more would no longer be funny. Enough is enough.
+smaller except to stay on theme. Doing more would no longer be funny. Enough is
-Or at least I hope.</p>
+enough. Or at least I hope. Okay…actually I take that back. More would be
 funnier. But it would have sacrificed the rest of the game and that would be a
 tragedy.</p>
 <p>But it really is that extreme.</p>
 <p>Here are some things Frank wrote:</p>
 <blockquote>
@@ -3099,7 +3122,9 @@ traits I do not even know how to describe. Perhaps they would be utterly
 ineffable.</p>
 <p>Actually I wanted to see what it was like. It was VERY amusing - but only
 because I did not have to debug it. For the submission I included line changes
-for JUST the third prompt. Yes, what would only take a few seconds of play. It
+for JUST the third prompt (this means the prog.orig.c file: as noted I made the
 prog.c the complete version instead, and made prog.c as submitted the
 prog.alt2.c, after the win). Yes, what would only take a few seconds of play. It
 looked like this (I only did the third prompt as I had mere hours left to
 finish):</p>
 <pre><code>    19 20 21 32 69 82 34 33 34 47 45 47 50 83 34 33 34 47 45 47 50 83 34 33 34</code></pre>
@@ -3112,12 +3137,12 @@ full sequence. This is from start to finish and I include it for your amusement
 (see <a href="jumps.txt">jumps.txt</a> for the line changes including calls to prog.c
 functions). Or horror. There are a few times where the line
 is the same but that only shows how very often the line changes. It is a total
-of <strong>985</strong> (!) changes, counting function calls, and <strong>776</strong> (!) excluding
+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 59 (!) lines.</p>
+<code>#include</code>s and only variables, has a mere 58 (!) lines.</p>
-<p>A program that has only 59 lines of code that jumps 985 (counting functions) or
+<p>A program that has only 58 lines of code that jumps 1416 (counting functions) or
-776 (just in main()) times is astonishing. Of course that’s not the
+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
 as well); the <a href="obfuscation.html">obfuscation.html</a> shows even more on this - and
@@ -3135,14 +3160,14 @@ 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 134 <code>goto</code>s (and I could have
+<p>It would have been SO MUCH EASIER if I did not use <del>134</del> 149 <code>goto</code>s.
-fit more in). Actually, even a
+Actually, even a tiny portion of that would make it harder. Nobody, whether
-tiny portion of that would make it harder. Nobody, whether they’re in their
+they’re in their right mind or not, would WANT to MAINTAIN this, or something
-right mind or not, would WANT to maintain this, or something even close to it.
+even close to it. Feel free to pass on judgement to me. I welcome it! You have
-Feel free to pass on judgement to me. I welcome it! You have to be mad and
+to be mad and embrace it to do this. I went full out and I could have fit more
-embrace it to do this. I went full out and I could have fit more <code>goto</code>s in: not
+<code>goto</code>s in: not only is the iocccsize not 2503 (although it’s close now) but I
-only is the iocccsize not 2503 but I could have removed some events if I really
+could have removed some events if I really wanted more <code>goto</code>s. That would be
-wanted more <code>goto</code>s.</p>
+less fun.</p>
 <p>Even flex/bison code, which as far as I am aware uses FAR fewer <code>goto</code>s, is
 notorious for <code>goto</code>s and is quite hard to follow. It would be a nightmare to
 try and maintain without the .l/.y source files.</p>
@@ -3172,27 +3197,21 @@ made even a few more commits. As it is it took a full two months and I BARELY
 finished this. In fact I finished it within hours of the contest closing! It was
 not even 12 hours before closing time. I barely made it. Part of that is I added
 even more <code>goto</code>s, despite the fact I had reached 2503 in size, with careful
-size optimisation.</p>
+size optimisation, though it got below that.</p>
 <p>Countless times I came up with ways to do more, at least where it was possible,
 such as freeing space so I could change some <code>break;</code>s to a <code>goto Z;</code> as <code>Z:</code>
 was already there. The only other times this happened is before I had changed
 the code so much that you can no longer trust what a block of code is. Like I
 said, I could not really move any more code if I wanted to, even if I had more
 space free. Those very few places where the code could in theory be moved are
-already controlled by goto.</p>
+already controlled by goto. The current <code>prog.c</code> has even more of this as it’s
-<p>In fact I could have done more <code>goto</code>s in this version but I wanted to help the
+the goto complete version.</p>
 judges out in judging - that and it was easier to verify things are correct.
 <code>iocccsize</code> reports on prog.c 2457 and after I won this I kind of wish I did
 take it even further just to mess with everyone even more.</p>
 <p>But as I said elsewhere basically everything is in the wrong place so what even
-would be the point in doing that? It would probably not make it harder to follow
+would be the point if I had more space? It would probably not make it harder to follow
 (well it would but still would there be a point in it?); it would just make it
 even more absurd: the amount of spaghetti code makes it nigh impossible to
-follow and I’m happy to have smashed the record of 24 by 110 <code>goto</code>s, even if I
+follow and I’m happy to have smashed the record of 24 by <del>110</del> 125
-now wish I had gone even further.</p>
+<code>goto</code>s.</p>
 <p>Nonetheless the 134 is what won so that’s what I’ll live by (and I doubt it’ll
 be broken as this kind of trick will, as the general remarks about the entries
 note, not be as worthy, even if <code>goto</code>s are alas, not banned outright).</p>
 <p>Anyway, as I noted in <a href="obfuscation.html">obfuscation.html</a>, no initialisation is
 skipped in my jumps and that is what causes <code>goto</code> to invoke UB.</p>
 <p>Everything is file scope. And in any case, when I do jump to a place, everything
@@ -3257,8 +3276,8 @@ 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 134 (with the cpp, 116 without). That is
+a failure in using <code>goto</code>! My code has <del>134</del> 149 (with the cpp,
-obscene. I did not fail. At all.</p>
+<del>116</del> 131 without). 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
@@ -3294,12 +3313,12 @@ 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 116 <code>goto</code>s with 134 when pre-processed
+<p>Yes, yes…I know, I <strong>KNOW</strong> I put in <del>116</del> 131 <code>goto</code>s with
-and that is probably more extreme than any other C program, especially in such a
+<del>134</del> 149 when pre-processed and that is probably more extreme than any
-small program (and I REALLY hope I’m right there!). But <strong>this does NOT matter</strong>!
+other C program, especially in such a small program (and I REALLY hope I’m right
-Even if one or two were not harmful (but they are) it’s jumping down a rabbit
+there!). But <strong>this does NOT matter</strong>! Even if one or two were not harmful (but
-hole that can very easily get deeper and deeper just like Alice found. When
+they are) it’s jumping down a rabbit hole that can very easily get deeper and
-there’s no <strong>NEED</strong> for it it’s much worse.</p>
+deeper just like Alice found. When there’s no <strong>NEED</strong> for it it’s much worse.</p>
 <p><code>goto</code>s are harmful and destroy flow control. I have shown a fair few obscure
 things about C, some which SEEM ILLEGAL but are not, but above all I have shown
 how much is lost with <code>goto</code>s (okay, I have shown this with other things too).
@@ -3342,24 +3361,26 @@ 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 134 angels. YES I condemned 134 angels to eternal torment. I <strong>HAD</strong> to.
+killed <del>134</del> 149 angels. YES I condemned <del>134</del> 149 angels to
-I don’t regret it - but you should, if you <strong>ever</strong> write something like this
+eternal torment. I <strong>HAD</strong> to. I don’t regret it - but you should, if you
-outside the IOCCC. In fact you should regret a single <del>goto</del> angel
+<strong>ever</strong> write something like this outside the IOCCC. In fact you should regret
-dying. Even if they did not go straight to hell in a handcart, you should still
+a single <del>goto</del> angel dying. Even if they did not go straight to hell
-regret it. But they do. Okay so I don’t really believe that but there is no
+in a handcart, you should still regret it. But they do. Okay so I don’t really
-denying there is goto hell here.</p>
+believe that but there is no denying there is goto hell here.</p>
-<p>I found my abuse of <code>goto</code> hilarious. It was good intentions - the contest. But
+<p>I <del>found</del> find my abuse of <code>goto</code> hilarious. It was good intentions -
-sadly sometimes the worst things that happen start with good intentions; and
+the contest. But sadly sometimes the worst things that happen start with good
-some of the best things strangely start with horrible intentions. It might be
+intentions; and some of the best things strangely start with horrible
-that I did this with good intentions for the contest but it would not be good
+intentions. It might be that I did this with good intentions for the contest but
-anywhere else. I would be beyond angry if I had to maintain this code. I would
+it would not be good anywhere else. I would be beyond angry if I had to maintain
-not blame anyone if they cursed me. I probably would be too. Not cursing you. I
+this code. I would not blame anyone if they cursed me. I probably would be too.
-mean cursing me.</p>
+Not cursing you. I mean cursing me.</p>
 <p>Don’t write code like this. Except for the IOCCC. Unless of course the judges
 decide they want no more <code>goto</code>s. I would not put that past them after what I
 have done. I can imagine them screaming and crying. Hopefully they’re laughing
 at more than the jokes but I hope they laugh at this too. Well we’ll see I
-guess…</p>
+guess… (it appears that, based on the general remarks by the judges, of the
 winning entries, that <code>goto</code> will no longer hold nearly as much water, and that
 makes me happy).</p>
 <p>Frankly THIS PROGRAM SHOULD NOT WORK! But it does and it works well even if the
 flow-control is a horrible nightmare from hell. Perhaps the Devil truly has
 possessed it. Hell, he might have possessed me. Why else would I send C straight
@@ -3725,8 +3746,8 @@ helps you appreciate the careful design even more.<a href="#fnref2" class="footn
 <ul>
 <li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/prog.c">prog.c</a> - entry source code</li>
 <li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/Makefile">Makefile</a> - entry Makefile</li>
 <li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/prog.alt2.c">prog.alt2.c</a> - original source code with minor bug fix</li>
 <li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/prog.alt.c">prog.alt.c</a> - alternate source code</li>
 <li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/prog.goto.max.c">prog.goto.max.c</a> - entry source code with maxed out gotos</li>
 <li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/prog.orig.c">prog.orig.c</a> - original source code</li>
 <li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/commented.c">commented.c</a> - commented version of the game</li>
 <li><a href="https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2024/ferguson1/addpadding.c">addpadding.c</a> - add padding from data source files</li>
@@ -1,40 +1,57 @@
-19 20 21 32 15 13 15 68 81 34 33 15 13 15 34 13 49 47 49 52 82 34 33 15 13
+19 20 21 29 15 13 15 5 55 65 31 30 15 13 15 31 13 37 36 37 39 66 31 30 15
-15 34 13 49 47 49 52 82 34 33 15 13 15 34 13 49 47 49 52 82 34 33 15 13 15
+13 15 31 13 37 36 37 39 66 31 30 15 13 15 31 13 37 36 37 39 66 31 30 15 13
-34 13 49 47 49 52 82 34 33 15 13 15 34 13 49 47 49 52 82 18 19 13 19 21 78
+15 31 13 37 36 37 39 66 31 30 15 13 15 31 13 37 36 37 39 66 18 19 13 19 21
-27 54 29 55 52 55 52 55 52 55 52 55 52 30 13 30 78 63 82 15 13 15 13 53 56
+62 26 41 58 41 27 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 28 13 28 62 50 66 15 13 15
-30 16 32 27 15 13 15 27 32 57 59 57 58 57 59 81 15 13 15 81 71 74 72 74 76
+13 55 65 31 30 15 13 15 31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34
-27 54 29 55 52 55 52 55 52 55 52 55 52 30 13 30 78 63 82 15 13 15 13 52 57
+35 39 66 31 30 15 13 15 31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34
-59 57 58 57 59 64 15 13 15 19 64 81 71 74 72 74 76 27 54 29 55 52 55 52 55
+35 39 66 31 30 15 13 15 31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34
-52 55 52 55 52 30 13 30 15 13 15 13 52 57 59 57 58 57 59 64 15 13 15 19 64
+35 39 66 31 30 15 13 15 31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34
-81 71 74 72 74 76 27 54 29 55 52 55 52 55 52 55 52 55 52 30 13 30 15 13 15
+35 39 66 31 30 15 13 15 31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34
-13 68 81 34 33 15 13 15 34 13 36 39 41 39 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41 39
+35 39 66 18 42 27 42 27 27 42 27 27 42 27 27 42 27 27 42 27 19 13 19 44 46
-41 43 52 82 34 33 15 13 15 34 13 36 39 41 39 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41
+44 45 44 46 51 15 13 15 51 65 58 60 59 60 61 26 41 58 41 27 42 39 42 39 42
-39 41 43 52 82 34 33 15 13 15 34 13 36 39 41 39 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41 39
+39 42 39 42 39 28 13 28 62 50 66 15 13 15 13 55 65 31 30 15 13 15 31 13 33
-41 39 41 43 52 82 34 33 15 13 15 34 13 36 39 41 39 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41
+34 33 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 35 15 13 15 55 65 31 30 15 13 15
-39 41 39 41 43 52 82 34 33 15 13 15 34 13 36 39 41 39 39 41 39 41 39 41 39
+31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 35 39 66 31 30 15 13 15
-41 39 41 39 41 43 52 82 18 55 29 55 29 29 55 29 29 55 29 29 55 29 29 55 29
+31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 35 39 66 31 30 15 13 15
-19 13 19 57 59 57 58 57 59 81 71 74 72 74 76 27 54 29 55 52 55 52 55 52 55
+31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 35 39 66 31 30 15 13 15
-52 55 52 30 13 30 15 13 15 13 52 57 59 57 58 57 59 60 15 13 15 60 81 71 74
+31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 35 39 66 31 30 15 13 15
-72 74 76 27 54 29 55 52 55 52 55 52 55 52 55 52 30 13 30 15 13 15 13 52 57
+31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 35 39 66 18 42 27 42 27
-59 57 58 57 59 64 15 13 15 19 64 81 71 74 72 74 76 27 54 29 55 52 55 52 55
+27 42 27 27 42 27 27 42 27 27 42 27 19 13 19 44 46 44 45 44 46 51 15 13 15
-52 55 52 55 52 30 13 30 78 63 82 15 13 15 13 52 57 59 57 58 57 59 64 15 13
+51 65 41 15 13 15 41 58 15 13 15 60 59 60 61 26 41 58 41 27 42 39 42 39 42
-15 19 64 81 54 15 13 15 54 15 13 15 15 13 15 83 15 13 15 27 54 29 55 52 55
+39 42 39 42 39 28 13 28 15 13 15 13 40 43 28 16 15 13 15 10 43 44 46 44 45
-52 55 52 55 52 55 52 30 13 30 78 63 82 15 13 15 13 52 57 59 57 58 57 59 64
+44 46 64 53 62 58 15 13 15 60 59 60 61 26 41 58 41 27 42 39 42 39 42 39 42
-15 13 15 64 81 83 68 71 15 13 15 74 72 74 76 27 54 29 55 52 55 52 55 52 55
+39 42 39 28 13 28 15 13 15 13 39 44 46 44 45 44 46 47 15 13 15 47 65 58 60
-52 55 52 30 13 30 78 63 82 15 13 15 13 52 57 59 57 58 57 59 64 15 13 15 64
+59 60 61 26 41 58 41 27 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 28 13 28 15 13 15 13
-81 83 68 71 74 72 74 76 27 54 29 55 52 55 52 55 52 55 52 55 52 30 13 30 78
+39 44 46 44 45 44 46 48 15 13 15 48 65 58 15 13 15 60 59 60 61 26 41 58 41
-63 82 15 13 15 13 52 57 59 57 58 57 59 61 15 13 15 61 81 83 68 71 15 13 15
+27 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 28 13 28 62 50 66 15 13 15 13 55 65 31 30
-74 72 74 76 27 54 29 55 52 55 52 55 52 55 52 55 52 30 13 30 15 13 15 13 68
+15 13 15 31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 35 39 66 31 30
-81 34 33 15 13 15 34 13 36 39 41 39 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41 43
+15 13 15 31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 35 39 66 31 30
-52 82 34 33 15 13 15 34 13 36 39 41 39 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41
+15 13 15 31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 35 39 66 31 30
-43 52 82 34 33 15 13 15 34 13 36 39 41 39 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41 39
+15 13 15 31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 35 39 66 31 30
-41 43 52 82 34 33 15 13 15 34 13 36 39 41 39 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41
+15 13 15 31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 35 39 66 18 42
-39 41 43 52 82 34 33 15 13 15 34 13 36 39 41 39 39 41 39 41 39 41 39 41 39
+27 42 27 27 42 27 27 42 27 27 42 27 27 42 27 19 13 19 44 46 44 45 44 46 64
-41 39 41 43 52 82 18 55 29 55 29 29 55 29 29 55 29 29 55 29 29 55 29 19 13
+53 62 58 15 13 15 60 59 60 61 26 41 58 41 27 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39
-19 57 59 57 58 57 59 81 15 13 15 81 83 68 71 74 72 74 76 27 54 29 55 52 55
+28 13 28 62 50 66 15 13 15 13 39 44 46 44 45 44 46 48 15 13 15 48 65 15 13
-52 55 52 55 52 55 52 30 13 30 15 13 15 13 52 57 59 57 58 57 59 65 15 13 15
+15 15 13 15 67 15 13 15 26 41 58 41 27 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 28 13
-65 81 83 68 71 74 72 74 76 27 54 29 55 52 55 52 55 52 55 52 55 52 30 13 30
+28 62 50 66 15 13 15 13 55 65 31 30 15 13 15 31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33
-15 13 15 13 52 57 59 57 58 57 59 60 15 13 15 60 81 83 68 69 70 71 15 13 15
+34 33 34 33 34 33 34 35 39 66 31 30 15 13 15 31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33
-74 72 74 76 27 54 29 55 52 55 52 55 52 55 52 55 52 30 13 30 15 13 15 13 52
+34 33 34 33 34 33 34 35 39 66 31 30 15 13 15 31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33
-57 59 57 58 57 59 64 15 13 15 19 64 81 83 68 71 15 13 15 74 72 74 76 27 83
+34 33 34 33 34 33 34 35 39 66 31 30 15 13 15 31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33
-26 21 15 13 15 15 13 15 24 85
+34 33 34 33 34 33 34 35 39 66 31 30 15 13 15 31 13 33 34 33 33 34 33 34 33
 34 33 34 33 34 33 34 35 39 66 18 42 27 42 27 27 42 27 27 42 27 27 42 27 27
 42 27 19 13 19 44 46 44 45 44 46 49 50 49 15 13 15 49 30 16 30 50 15 13 15
 50 65 58 59 42 15 13 15 42 60 59 60 61 26 41 58 41 27 42 39 42 39 42 39 42
 39 42 39 28 13 28 62 50 66 15 13 15 13 39 44 46 44 45 44 46 48 15 13 15 48
 65 15 13 15 67 15 13 15 67 43 55 58 60 59 60 61 26 41 58 41 27 42 39 42 39
 42 39 42 39 42 39 28 13 28 15 13 15 13 39 44 46 44 45 44 46 63 15 13 15 63
 65 67 43 55 58 60 59 60 61 26 41 58 41 27 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 28
 13 28 62 50 66 15 13 15 13 39 44 46 44 45 44 46 64 53 55 61 15 13 15 61 58
 60 59 60 61 26 41 58 41 27 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 28 13 28 62 50 66
 15 13 15 13 39 44 46 44 45 44 46 52 15 13 15 52 53 62 15 13 15 65 67 43 55
 58 60 59 60 61 26 41 58 41 27 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 28 13 28 62 50
 66 15 13 15 13 39 44 46 44 45 44 46 51 15 13 15 51 65 67 43 55 58 15 13 15
 60 59 60 61 26 41 58 41 27 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 28 13 28 62 50 66
 15 13 15 13 39 44 46 44 45 44 46 52 15 13 15 52 53 62 15 13 15 65 67 43 55
 58 60 59 60 61 26 41 58 41 27 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 42 39 28 13 28 62 50
 66 15 13 15 13 39 44 46 44 45 44 46 51 15 13 15 51 65 67 43 55 56 57 58 60
 59 60 61 26 62 25 49 21 15 13 15 15 13 15 24 68
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
 * data.src to see which strings have emojis.
 *
 * It reads one 'string' at a time; it does not read in the whole file at once.
- * option it allows for another file.
+ * The -i option allows for another file.
 */
 #include <string.h>
 #include <stdio.h>
@@ -494,42 +494,45 @@ counter-example for that letter but oh is everyone in for a HUGE SHOCK!</p>
 <p>24 is peanuts compared to what I did. And let’s be honest - 24 is ALREADY WAY
 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 92 MORE, <strong>BEFORE</strong> the
+<p>Here’s the horrifying and hilarious truth: I beat it out by <del>92</del> 107
-cpp at 116 and after the cpp is through I beat it by <strong>110</strong> MORE (!!), <strong>AT
+MORE, <strong>BEFORE</strong> the cpp at <del>116</del> 131 and after the cpp is through I
-134!</strong> Yes, you read that right. 134 <code>goto</code>s! I even went further in an alt
+beat it by <strong>125</strong> MORE (!!), <strong>AT 149!</strong> Yes, you read that right.
-version, where before the cpp it was 131 <code>goto</code>s and after the cpp 149 (!!)
+<del>134</del> 149 <code>goto</code>s! The originally submitted prog.c, submitted for
-<code>goto</code>s. I didn’t do this in the main entry for practical reasons but I wish I
+practical reasons only, had it at, as might be guessed, 116/134 before and after
-had.</p>
+the cpp.</p>
-<p>Even removing what I think are the only dead <code>goto</code>s, two of them, including one
+<p>Even removing what I think were the only dead <code>goto</code>s in the incomplete version,
-that is in the <code>w()</code> macro that would be translated into more, I beat it by 90
+two of them, including one that is in the <code>w()</code> macro that would be translated
-more, at 114 before the cpp, and 99 more after the cpp, at 123!</p>
+into more, I beat it by 90 more, at 114 before the cpp, and 99 more after the
 cpp, at 123! But of course it’s more now…</p>
 <p>Did I forget to mention the original Oregon Trail in <strong>BASIC</strong> from 1978 HAS A
 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
-116/134 <code>goto</code>s, depending on if you pre-process it or not! YES I might be mad.
+<del>116/134</del> 131/149 <code>goto</code>s, depending on if you pre-process it or not!
-YES I think it’s HILARIOUS. But if it was not for the IOCCC… Well, as I
+YES I might be mad. YES I think it’s HILARIOUS. But if it was not for the
-mention in my <a href="#devil">remarks above</a>, EVEN ONE IS TOO MANY
+IOCCC… Well, as I mention in my <a href="#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 59 lines and in a single run there were a
+lines of code) the program has just 58 lines and in a single run there were a
-total of <strong>985</strong> (!) line changes, counting function calls. In <code>main()</code> itself
+total of <strong>1416</strong> (!) line changes, counting function calls. In <code>main()</code> itself
-the line changed a total of <strong>776</strong> (!) times!</p>
+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">famous company</a>
+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 116/134 and it
+actually introduced a security hole from ONE <code>goto</code>. Yet I have
-actually works? That is surely obscene. And beautiful.</p>
+<del>116/134</del> 131/149 and it actually works? That is surely obscene. And
-<p>Oh and BTW: it appears that <code>hines</code> is a bit confused about my entry,
+beautiful. But wrong.</p>
-though I’m not really sure why. In any case, I not only have dethroned <code>hines</code>
+<p>Oh and BTW: it appears that <code>hines</code> is a bit confused about my entry, though I’m
-(sorry …but also not sorry!) but I have, as noted already, beaten the original
+not really sure why. In any case, I not only have dethroned <code>hines</code> (sorry
-BASIC game by <strong>7</strong> more <code>goto</code>s at 116 before the cpp and <strong>25 MORE</strong> after the
+…but also not sorry!) but I have, as noted already, beaten the original BASIC
-cpp, at 134!</p>
+game by <del>7</del> 22 more <code>goto</code>s at <del>116</del> 131 before the cpp
-<p>It’s almost impossible to add more <code>goto</code>s. You’ll see why soon. But even if
+and <del><strong>18 MORE</strong></del> <strong>40 MORE</strong> after the cpp, at 149!</p>
-that was not the case I wanted room for the other things I did, some of which
+<p>It’s almost impossible to add more <code>goto</code>s. With the iocccsize it is impossible,
-are quite cool and I believe unique as well.</p>
+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
 which are quite cool and I believe unique as well.</p>
 <p>And yes, I agree: the idea of <code>goto</code>s considered harmful considered harmful is
 ludicrous, and as you just found out (probably in horror), I have taken it far
 further.</p>
@@ -537,10 +540,11 @@ further.</p>
 know about C when it comes to things like: loops, if/else, switch/case, blocks
 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
+<p>This is not counting other cool things like a single <code>char *</code> holding near 200
-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>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
-<code>char *</code>! Yet in the code I index it AS IF it’s a <code>char *[]</code>, just to add to
+confusion (as if the <del>134</del> 149 <code>goto</code>s are not bad enough). But it’s
-the confusion (as if the 134 <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>
+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>
 <p>This program took two months, to the day, to develop and it was totally worth
 it. But I was almost strangled by the spaghetti, kind of like the Devil, which
@@ -590,17 +594,19 @@ 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 116 <code>goto</code>s or more when filtered through <code>cc -E</code> (134!), wouldn’t you say? If that’s NOT too many, then I ask you WHAT IS?</p>
+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
 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.</p>
+the mountains code, which obviously I also include and has more events (if we
-<p>I discuss this some in my concluding <a href="#devil">remarks above</a>,
+count the doctor visits an event then even more).</p>
-as well as mentioning that there are other events
+<p>I discuss this some in my concluding <a href="#devil">remarks above</a>, as well as
-besides those 23. I certainly will not reveal all though. The humour and jokes
+mentioning that there are other events besides those 23. I certainly will not
-sections of that file says more but the concluding remarks are for a summary and
+reveal all though. The humour and jokes sections of that file says more but the
-why I think that this code is worthy of the contest AND also pointing out the
+concluding remarks are for a summary and why I think that this code is worthy of
-folly of <code>goto</code>.</p>
+the contest AND also pointing out the folly of <code>goto</code>.</p>
 <p>In this file I will discuss how some events actually are polymorphic, in a
 sense, having at least two different events.</p>
 <p>THIS IS ALL OBSCENE.</p>
@@ -634,7 +640,58 @@ 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
    143  colons
    51   if
    11   else
    3    while
    4    for
    0    do
    6    switch
    32   case
    2    sizeof
    0    break
    0    continue
    2    default
    8    long
    3    unsigned
    4    return
    1    void
    1    int
    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
    143  colons
    51   if
    11   else
    7    while
    4    for
    0    do
    6    switch
    32   case
    2    sizeof
    0    break
    0    continue
    2    default
    8    long
    3    unsigned
    4    return
    1    void
    1    int
    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>
 <pre><code>    116  goto
    294  semicolon
    138  colons
    50   if
    11   else
    4    while
@@ -653,11 +710,12 @@ horrified, if you’re not already:</p>
    1    int
    1    char
    1    size_t
    1    FILE
    Ratio: 0.83 gotos per keyword</code></pre>
 <p>And the pre-processed one:</p>
 <pre><code>    134  goto
    332  semicolon
    138  colons
    50   if
    11   else
    8    while
@@ -676,13 +734,9 @@ horrified, if you’re not already:</p>
    1    int
    1    char
    1    size_t
    1    FILE
-    Ratio: 0.93 gotos per keyword</code></pre>
+    Ratio: 0.94 gotos per keyword</code></pre>
-<p>LOOK AT THAT RATIO! And we could even suggest that <code>FILE</code> might not be a
+<p>Look at those ratios. This is not right.</p>
 keyword, but rather a struct.</p>
 <p>Whether data types are keywords for this is also something to consider but we’ll
 include them as keywords anyway. I don’t believe I use any others in any case.</p>
 <p>This program is as cursed as the PC (player character) if not much more cursed.
 It is totally bonkers and it was really hard to find places for labels even
 after I put them in bizarre and unusual places. But I get into that in more
@@ -783,7 +837,8 @@ 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 116 before the cpp and 134 (!!) after the cpp.</p>
+<code>goto</code>s. Yet I have <del>116</del> 131 before the cpp and <del>134</del> 149
 (!!) 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
 itself is worth something or some things - including curses.</p>
@@ -940,6 +995,8 @@ one question their sanity even more. Yes I’m probably a sociopath.</p>
    * WARNING: this code and its comments are not up to date. I wrote 116 before
    * 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>
 <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
@@ -1716,30 +1773,33 @@ padding?</p>
 <h3 id="conclusions">Conclusions</h3>
 <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 (116 or 1134 depending on
+the odd looking compound literal, the maze of <code>goto</code>s (<del>116</del> 131 or
-if you pre-process the code), the bastardised Duff’s device, the strange labels
+<del>134</del> 149 depending on if you pre-process the code), the bastardised
-inside <code>switch()</code>s, the jumping into and out of <code>switch()</code>s only to jump back in
+Duff’s device, the strange labels inside <code>switch()</code>s, the jumping into and out
-(or out), the for loops split across several parts of the code (one making it
+of <code>switch()</code>s only to jump back in (or out), the for loops split across several
-look like variables are uninitialised), if/else code being swapped in location
+parts of the code (one making it look like variables are uninitialised), if/else
-(or moved to other parts of the code, even in what would otherwise be dead code,
+code being swapped in location (or moved to other parts of the code, even in
-including possibly this for for loops), the fall through of a label to a goto
+what would otherwise be dead code, including possibly this for for loops), the
-that jumps back to right before that fall through just to exit the game (isn’t
+fall through of a label to a goto that jumps back to right before that fall
-that so cute?), the fact I had to write all those tools to verify things are
+through just to exit the game (isn’t that so cute?), the fact I had to write all
-okay (showing how messed up it is), different blocks that have code that simply
+those tools to verify things are okay (showing how messed up it is), different
-should not be there, the nested ternary operators…</p>
+blocks that have code that simply should not be there, the nested ternary
-<p>As for the <code>goto</code>s: yes I technically have more space. But it became almost
+operators…</p>
-impossible to add more spaghetti to the pot without it overflowing, and I do not
+<p>As for the <code>goto</code>s: yes I technically had more space. But it became almost
 impossible to add more spaghetti to the pot without it overflowing, and I didn’t
 want to waste perfectly good spaghetti. There comes a point when there’s just so
-much spaghetti that it’s wasted, if it can even be cooked. I believe I have
+much spaghetti that it’s wasted, if it can even be cooked. I believed I reached
-reached the latter.</p>
+the latter. But of course that was a practical choice - and not my complete
-<p>Do you REALLY expect me to add more spaghetti? There isn’t anything that could
+version. It was just easier to test as I had another version to contend to.</p>
-be done, even if it was possible to maintain this huge platter of delicious
+<p>But let’s say I had more space with iocccsize: do you REALLY expect me to add
-spaghetti without gaining fifty kilograms. Besides, I don’t want to see
+more spaghetti? There isn’t anything that could be done, even if it was possible
-spaghetti EVER AGAIN!! I’ve had enough of it for a lifetime! Okay, that’s not
+to maintain this huge platter of delicious spaghetti without gaining fifty
-really true…it DOES sound good but I won’t likely be having it for a while.
+kilograms. Besides, I don’t want to see spaghetti EVER AGAIN!! I’ve had enough
-Can you actually blame me though? This spaghetti almost strangled me to death,
+of it for a lifetime! Okay, that’s not really true…it DOES sound good but I
-like it did the Devil (I provided photographic proof of this earlier if you
+won’t likely be having it for a while. Can you actually blame me though? This
-missed that).</p>
+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>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
@@ -48,16 +48,17 @@ counter-example for that letter but oh is everyone in for a HUGE SHOCK!
 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 92 MORE, **BEFORE** the
+Here's the horrifying and hilarious truth: I beat it out by <del>92</del> 107
-cpp at 116 and after the cpp is through I beat it by **110** MORE (!!), **AT
+MORE, **BEFORE** the cpp at <del>116</del> 131 and after the cpp is through I
-134!** Yes, you read that right. 134 `goto`s! I even went further in an alt
+beat it by **125** MORE (!!), **AT 149!** Yes, you read that right.
-version, where before the cpp it was 131 `goto`s and after the cpp 149 (!!)
+<del>134</del> 149 `goto`s! The originally submitted prog.c, submitted for
-`goto`s. I didn't do this in the main entry for practical reasons but I wish I
+practical reasons only, had it at, as might be guessed, 116/134 before and after
-had.
+the cpp.
-Even removing what I think are the only dead `goto`s, two of them, including one
+Even removing what I think were the only dead `goto`s in the incomplete version,
-that is in the `w()` macro that would be translated into more, I beat it by 90
+two of them, including one that is in the `w()` macro that would be translated
-more, at 114 before the cpp, and 99 more after the cpp, at 123!
+into more, I beat it by 90 more, at 114 before the cpp, and 99 more after the
 cpp, at 123! But of course it's more now...
 Did I forget to mention the original Oregon Trail in **BASIC** from 1978 HAS A
 MEASLY 109? THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. Well it did happen and this HAS to be a
@@ -65,32 +66,34 @@ 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
-116/134 `goto`s, depending on if you pre-process it or not! YES I might be mad.
+<del>116/134</del> 131/149 `goto`s, depending on if you pre-process it or not!
-YES I think it's HILARIOUS. But if it was not for the IOCCC... Well, as I
+YES I might be mad.  YES I think it's HILARIOUS. But if it was not for the
-mention in my [remarks above](#devil), EVEN ONE IS TOO MANY
+IOCCC... Well, as I mention in my [remarks above](#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 59 lines and in a single run there were a
+lines of code) the program has just 58 lines and in a single run there were a
-total of **985** (!) line changes, counting function calls. In `main()` itself
+total of **1416** (!) line changes, counting function calls. In `main()` itself
-the line changed a total of **776** (!) times!
+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 [famous company](https://www.apple.com)
+I note in those concluding remarks, a [nameless company](https://www.apple.com)
-actually introduced a security hole from ONE `goto`. Yet I have 116/134 and it
+actually introduced a security hole from ONE `goto`. Yet I have
-actually works? That is surely obscene. And beautiful.
+<del>116/134</del> 131/149 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,
+Oh and BTW: it appears that `hines` is a bit confused about my entry, though I'm
-though I'm not really sure why. In any case, I not only have dethroned `hines`
+not really sure why. In any case, I not only have dethroned `hines` (sorry
-(sorry ...but also not sorry!) but I have, as noted already, beaten the original
+...but also not sorry!) but I have, as noted already, beaten the original BASIC
-BASIC game by **7** more `goto`s at 116 before the cpp and **25 MORE** after the
+game by <del>7</del> 22 more `goto`s at <del>116</del> 131 before the cpp
-cpp, at 134!
+and <del>**18 MORE**</del> **40 MORE** after the cpp, at 149!
-It's almost impossible to add more `goto`s. You'll see why soon. But even if
+It's almost impossible to add more `goto`s. With the iocccsize it is impossible,
-that was not the case I wanted room for the other things I did, some of which
+if I don't want to sacrifice the rest of the program. You'll see why soon. But
-are quite cool and I believe unique as well.
+even if that was not the case I wanted room for the other things I did, some of
 which are quite cool and I believe unique as well.
 And yes, I agree: the idea of `goto`s considered harmful considered harmful is
 ludicrous, and as you just found out (probably in horror), I have taken it far
@@ -101,11 +104,12 @@ know about C when it comes to things like: loops, if/else, switch/case, blocks
 in general, where code can be, where labels can be, really everything: the code
 is in all the wrong places.
-This is not counting other cool things like a single `char *` holding near
+This is not counting other cool things like a single `char *` holding near 200
-200 `char *`s. No. I do not mean an array of `char *`s! I mean a single flat
+`char *`s. No. I do not mean an array of `char *`s! I mean a single flat `char
-`char *`! Yet in the code I index it AS IF it's a `char *[]`, just to add to
+*`! Yet in the code I index it AS IF it's a `char *[]`, just to add to the
-the confusion (as if the 134 `goto`s are not bad enough). But it's not a `char
+confusion (as if the <del>134</del> 149 `goto`s are not bad enough). But it's
-*[]`. It's a single `char *`, which is the contents of the data file.
+not a `char *[]`. It's a single `char *`, which is the contents of the data
 file.
 There are other things I have done, of course.
@@ -167,20 +171,21 @@ 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 116 `goto`s or more when filtered through `cc
+relatively short program to have <del>116</del> 131 `goto`s or more when
-E` (134!), wouldn't you say? If that's NOT too many, then I ask you WHAT IS?
+filtered through `cc -E` (<del>134</del> 149!), 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
 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.
+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),
+I discuss this some in my concluding [remarks above](#devil), as well as
-as well as mentioning that there are other events
+mentioning that there are other events besides those 23. I certainly will not
-besides those 23. I certainly will not reveal all though. The humour and jokes
+reveal all though. The humour and jokes sections of that file says more but the
-sections of that file says more but the concluding remarks are for a summary and
+concluding remarks are for a summary and why I think that this code is worthy of
-why I think that this code is worthy of the contest AND also pointing out the
+the contest AND also pointing out the folly of `goto`.
 folly of `goto`.
 In this file I will discuss how some events actually are polymorphic, in a
 sense, having at least two different events.
@@ -223,8 +228,68 @@ Here are some fun statistics from a somewhat rudimentary program on both the
 prog.c and after filtered through `cc -E`. First prog.c. Prepare to be
 horrified, if you're not already:
 ```
    131  goto
    301  semicolon
    143  colons
    51   if
    11   else
    3    while
    4    for
    0    do
    6    switch
    32   case
    2    sizeof
    0    break
    0    continue
    2    default
    8    long
    3    unsigned
    4    return
    1    void
    1    int
    1    char
    1    size_t
    Ratio: 1.01 gotos per keyword
 ```
 1.01 goto per keyword? But then there's the cpp filtered code...
 ```
    149  goto
    339  semicolon
    143  colons
    51   if
    11   else
    7    while
    4    for
    0    do
    6    switch
    32   case
    2    sizeof
    0    break
    0    continue
    2    default
    8    long
    3    unsigned
    4    return
    1    void
    1    int
    1    char
    1    size_t
    Ratio: 1.11 gotos per keyword
 ```
 1.11!
 For comparison, here is the original version:
 ```
    116  goto
    294  semicolon
    138  colons
    50   if
    11   else
    4    while
@@ -243,7 +308,6 @@ horrified, if you're not already:
    1    int
    1    char
    1    size_t
    1    FILE
    Ratio: 0.83 gotos per keyword
 ```
@@ -252,6 +316,8 @@ And the pre-processed one:
 ```
    134  goto
    332  semicolon
    138  colons
    50   if
    11   else
    8    while
@@ -270,16 +336,11 @@ And the pre-processed one:
    1    int
    1    char
    1    size_t
    1    FILE
-    Ratio: 0.93 gotos per keyword
+    Ratio: 0.94 gotos per keyword
 ```
-LOOK AT THAT RATIO! And we could even suggest that `FILE` might not be a
+Look at those ratios. This is not right.
 keyword, but rather a struct.
 Whether data types are keywords for this is also something to consider but we'll
 include them as keywords anyway. I don't believe I use any others in any case.
 This program is as cursed as the PC (player character) if not much more cursed.
 It is totally bonkers and it was really hard to find places for labels even
@@ -414,7 +475,8 @@ 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 116 before the cpp and 134 (!!) after the cpp.
+`goto`s. Yet I have <del>116</del> 131 before the cpp and <del>134</del> 149
 (!!) after the cpp.
 And unfortunately for you dear reader I have done other things that also are
 quite different and totally unrelated to `goto`s. Even so the `goto` madness by
@@ -600,6 +662,9 @@ As I commented in the commented.c:
    * repeatedly revisit this file trying to explain everything.
 ```
 ...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.
 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
@@ -1620,32 +1685,35 @@ padding?
 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 (116 or 1134 depending on
+the odd looking compound literal, the maze of `goto`s (<del>116</del> 131 or
-if you pre-process the code), the bastardised Duff's device, the strange labels
+<del>134</del> 149 depending on if you pre-process the code), the bastardised
-inside `switch()`s, the jumping into and out of `switch()`s only to jump back in
+Duff's device, the strange labels inside `switch()`s, the jumping into and out
-(or out), the for loops split across several parts of the code (one making it
+of `switch()`s only to jump back in (or out), the for loops split across several
-look like variables are uninitialised), if/else code being swapped in location
+parts of the code (one making it look like variables are uninitialised), if/else
-(or moved to other parts of the code, even in what would otherwise be dead code,
+code being swapped in location (or moved to other parts of the code, even in
-including possibly this for for loops), the fall through of a label to a goto
+what would otherwise be dead code, including possibly this for for loops), the
-that jumps back to right before that fall through just to exit the game (isn't
+fall through of a label to a goto that jumps back to right before that fall
-that so cute?), the fact I had to write all those tools to verify things are
+through just to exit the game (isn't that so cute?), the fact I had to write all
-okay (showing how messed up it is), different blocks that have code that simply
+those tools to verify things are okay (showing how messed up it is), different
-should not be there, the nested ternary operators...
+blocks that have code that simply should not be there, the nested ternary
 operators...
-As for the `goto`s: yes I technically have more space. But it became almost
+As for the `goto`s: yes I technically had more space. But it became almost
-impossible to add more spaghetti to the pot without it overflowing, and I do not
+impossible to add more spaghetti to the pot without it overflowing, and I didn't
 want to waste perfectly good spaghetti. There comes a point when there's just so
-much spaghetti that it's wasted, if it can even be cooked. I believe I have
+much spaghetti that it's wasted, if it can even be cooked. I believed I reached
-reached the latter.
+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.
-Do you REALLY expect me to add more spaghetti? There isn't anything that could
+But let's say I had more space with iocccsize: do you REALLY expect me to add
-be done, even if it was possible to maintain this huge platter of delicious
+more spaghetti? There isn't anything that could be done, even if it was possible
-spaghetti without gaining fifty kilograms. Besides, I don't want to see
+to maintain this huge platter of delicious spaghetti without gaining fifty
-spaghetti EVER AGAIN!! I've had enough of it for a lifetime! Okay, that's not
+kilograms. Besides, I don't want to see spaghetti EVER AGAIN!! I've had enough
-really true...it DOES sound good but I won't likely be having it for a while.
+of it for a lifetime! Okay, that's not really true...it DOES sound good but I
-Can you actually blame me though? This spaghetti almost strangled me to death,
+won't likely be having it for a while. Can you actually blame me though? This
-like it did the Devil (I provided photographic proof of this earlier if you
+spaghetti almost strangled me to death, like it did the Devil (I provided
-missed that).
+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.
 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
@@ -9,16 +9,6 @@
 * Using the macro (identical except it uses puts() on some of the strings that
 * are unencrypted) from prog.c we will print out every string
 * at every location in the order it occurs.
 *
 * IMPORTANT NOTE: as some strings have a marker that indicates to not be
 * encrypted but the marker is not in the data file itself, the bytecount.c
 * might be better in that it uses the data source file.  However for my own
 * purposes I have this tool too. This tool, to prevent display problems, checks
 * for specific known locations where it should not decrypt anything due to not
 * being encrypted (the '%' ones notwithstanding), and if it is that number it
 * will print it out with puts() instead (can't be printf() as it has %
 * conversions). A BEL byte also is unencrypted (if it's the first character of
 * the string it's skipped and printed without encrypting it).
 */
 #include <string.h>
 #include <stdio.h>
@@ -32,7 +22,6 @@
 */
 #define Z(x) (x)*BLOCKSIZE
 #define V(x) puts(&y[Z(x)]);
 static char *p;
 static char *y;
 static char *filename = "data";
 static size_t len;
@@ -18,13 +18,13 @@ 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)
+ 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:
+            goto OO; yy:
-{ if(b<1||M<0||M>2169){ goto _; F:V(51); R+=18; goto L; } goto i;
+do{ if(b<1||M<0||M>2169){ break; 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);
@@ -49,37 +49,37 @@ t[X])if(t[X]<0||t[X]>
            *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;
+	    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;
+O:{ V(e = 19); O -= 40; R+=40; } goto E; i:if(O<1){ goto d; } else { v=0; } 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;
+} 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;
+} T:l=1; if (E<9){ goto h; } else { goto l; h: V(16); } 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(0,23))
+	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 1:V(95); R+=5; break; case 18:V(26); goto Z; case 13:V(28); break;
-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
+case 2:O-=40; V(71); break; case 3:V(a=76); b-=70; goto W; case 4:V(77); N-=7; M-=7; break; case 5:case
-10:if(q<6) { goto ha; m: V(56); goto D; CC: goto OO; o:; } else
+10:if(q<6) { goto ha; m: V(56); goto D; 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 9:case 19:V(30); goto Z; case 20:V(32); break; case 21 :V(31); break; 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||
+if(!x(0,3)){ w(x(0,4)?84:x(0,4)?33:34) e:if(O>39){ V(e=x(0,1)?18:19); O -= 40; goto q; 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
+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);
+ } M-=17; goto Z; case 14: V(74); break; 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=
+	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; 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;
+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 n; t: V(22); M -= 85; n:if(m){ goto u; } m=1; if (x(0,9) > 5) goto w; V(23); z:; } while (A++<21); goto _;
 }
 }
@@ -18,68 +18,51 @@ 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)
+ 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:
-            goto OO; yy:
+{ if(b<1||M<0||M>2169){ goto _; F:V(51); R+=18; goto L; } goto i;
 do{ if(b<1||M<0||M>2169){ break; 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);
+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
 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,
+unsigned){ 6 } ); if(z){ S(3,t[X])if(t[X]<0||t[X]>
-
+   666      ){ V(14); goto x; goto
 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:; }
-            =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(
            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;
 	    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 { v=0; } goto P; go: V(81); R+=9; N+=3; goto to;
+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;
+} 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); } C: l=0; f:z=0;
+} 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
+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(0,23))
+	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; break; case 18:V(26); goto Z; case 13:V(28); break;
+{ 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); break; case 3:V(a=76); b-=70; goto W; case 4:V(77); N-=7; M-=7; break; case 5:case
+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; o:; } else
+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); break; case 21 :V(31); break; case 6:goto g; case 16: case 22:V(49); goto Z; case 17:V(72); goto Z;
+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
+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){ V(e=x(0,1)?18:19); O -= 40; goto q; 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) } 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
+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
 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); break; case 15: V(x(0,1)?69:68);
+ } 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
+ 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; 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=
+	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;
+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 u; } m=1; if (x(0,9) > 5) goto w; V(23); z:; } while (A++<21); goto _;
+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 _;
-}
+} }
 }