Timeline for Portable BrainFuck Interpreter in ANSI C89
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 17, 2019 at 23:22 | vote | accept | S.S. Anne | ||
| Oct 16, 2019 at 12:37 | history | bounty ended | rolfl | ||
| Oct 14, 2019 at 12:30 | vote | accept | S.S. Anne | ||
| Oct 14, 2019 at 12:31 | |||||
| Oct 14, 2019 at 12:30 | comment | added | S.S. Anne | Could you please go over performance in this answer? | |
| Oct 13, 2019 at 16:35 | comment | added | Quuxplusone |
If you're asking whether Windows (MSVC) supports for (int i=0; i < n; ++i), the answer is "yes, since sometime in the '90s."
|
|
| Oct 12, 2019 at 22:41 | comment | added | S.S. Anne | Any note on how to make the nesting faster? | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 19:35 | comment | added | S.S. Anne | I was mainly concerned with Windows-compatibility. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 19:34 | comment | added | S.S. Anne | I completely forgot about the current version of ANSI C. I was referring to ANSI C89. I'll clarify that in the title. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 19:33 | comment | added | Quuxplusone |
You can definitely test the spc-realloc bug with a short test case. Use nested loops.
|
|
| Oct 11, 2019 at 19:32 | comment | added | Quuxplusone |
@JL2210: As far as I know, ANSI C tracks ISO C, so the current standard is 2018. Admittedly my close knowledge of C stops circa 1999 (20 years ago), but if you're saying that you can't use inline functions because you're stuck on 19*89* (30 years ago)... and without GNU C extensions... well, I don't think you have any valid engineering reason for that.
|
|
| Oct 11, 2019 at 18:36 | comment | added | S.S. Anne | I'll fix the usage, though. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 18:36 | comment | added | S.S. Anne |
I can't have the declaration of nest inside the for loop because would not be ANSI C.
|
|
| Oct 11, 2019 at 18:34 | comment | added | S.S. Anne |
I wish I had test cases but they'd be 32KB long to test this. Sadly, gcov doesn't work well for me. I tried it once but it just didn't work.
|
|
| Oct 11, 2019 at 18:33 | comment | added | S.S. Anne |
About realloc and the double free -- extremely good catch. I wrote this at 9:00 last Friday, so I guess that's why.
|
|
| Oct 11, 2019 at 18:27 | comment | added | S.S. Anne |
spc and ipc can't be size_t because then the checks for < 0 on them wouldn't work.
|
|
| Oct 11, 2019 at 18:25 | comment | added | S.S. Anne |
Nice note about the calloc, but the order of the arguments doesn't matter. It's really just a simple multiplication and a check for overflow.
|
|
| Oct 11, 2019 at 18:15 | comment | added | S.S. Anne | Same for the inline functions. | |
| Oct 11, 2019 at 18:14 | comment | added | S.S. Anne |
Your point about defining the variables after the if is invalid. Note the title, which says "in ANSI C".
|
|
| Oct 11, 2019 at 16:50 | history | answered | Quuxplusone | CC BY-SA 4.0 |