News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Xmas.c, winner of the 1988 International Obfuscated C Code Contest. Parent comment

Re:Xmas.c, winner of the 1988 International Obfuscated C Cod... by tgv on Sunday December 24, 2023 @09:12AM (#38753566)
Are those consts really necessary? There are also a few character missing after char *d.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Xmas.c, winner of the 1988 International Obfuscated C Cod... by junon on Sunday December 24, 2023 @09:24AM (#38753645)
which characters are missing?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Xmas.c, winner of the 1988 International Obfuscated C Cod... by huhtenberg on Sunday December 24, 2023 @10:03AM (#38753882)
"]=" after "*d["
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Xmas.c, winner of the 1988 International Obfuscated C Cod... by junon on Sunday December 24, 2023 @10:18AM (#38753992)
It's not necessary in C.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Xmas.c, winner of the 1988 International Obfuscated C Cod... by tgv on Sunday December 24, 2023 @12:30PM (#38754998)
You should tell my compiler.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Xmas.c, winner of the 1988 International Obfuscated C Cod... by huhtenberg on Sunday December 24, 2023 @04:18PM (#38756941) 

   const char *d[{"First","Second",...,"Twelf"};
is not a valid C unconditionally.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Xmas.c, winner of the 1988 International Obfuscated C Cod... by mananaysiempre on Monday December 25, 2023 @02:24AM (#38760556)
> Are those consts really necessary?

Technically yes, initializing a plain char * from a const char * (from array decay) is a constraint violation (an error the standard requires the compiler to detect and complain about) even in C89. Many compilers will let you off with a warning though.

[ Parent | on HN ]