4 ms·

Not only is it nonfunctional, it's also at least 8 bytes longer than it really needs to be: short s[70];*l=s;t;main(){for(;;){read(0,s,140);if((s[4]>>8)==1&s[1

• viraptor 16y ago
  2 less: short s[70];*l=s+6;t;main(){for(;;){read(0,s,140);if((s[4]>>8)==1&s[10]==8)s[10]=0,s[11]+=8,t=*l,*l=l[1],l[1]=t,write(1,s,140);}} And 3 less (if I didn't make a mistake with precedence...): short s[70];*l=s+6;t;main(){for(;;){read(0,s,140);s[4]>>8==1&s[10]==8?s[10]=0,s[11]+=8,t=*l,*l=l[1],l[1]=t,write(1,s,140):0;}} 1 less for t in main declaration: short s[70];*l=s+6;main(t){for(;;){read(0,s,140);s[4]>>8==1&s[10]==8?s[10]=0,s[11]+=8,t=*l,*l=l[1],l[1]=t,write(1,s,140):0;}} 3 less since blocking read returns > 0 (also no reason for braces now) short s[70];*l=s+6;main(t){for(;read(0,s,140);)s[4]>>8==1&s[10]==8?s[10]=0,s[11]+=8,t=*l,*l=l[1],l[1]=t,write(1,s,140):0;}
• tobik 16y ago
  5 less: short s[70];*l=s;t;main(){read(0,s,140);s[4]>>8==1&s[10]==8?s[10]=0,s[11]+=8,t=l[4],l[4]=l[3],l[3]=t,write(1,s,140):0;main();} 8 less now, thanks to viraptor: short s[70];*l=s+6;main(t){read(0,s,140);s[4]>>8==1&s[10]==8?s[10]=0,s[11]+=8,t=*l,*l=l[1],l[1]=t,write(1,s,140):0;main();}
  • jacquesm 16y ago
    That will grow the stack until it crashes though it seems.
    • 1amzave 16y ago
      Unless your compiler is smart enough to optimize the tail-call into a jump...
      • tobik 16y ago
        ... which gcc is if you compile with -O2.