ABC: A C compiler for printable x86
tom7.org
tom7.org
> Now, for good reasons that I will explain later, this paper must contain 8,224 repetitions of the string "~~Q(", another weird flower. Please proceed to Page 3 to continue reading this interesting paper.
> ~~Q(~~Q(~~Q(~~Q(~~Q(~~Q(~~Q(~~Q(~~Q(~~Q([etc.]
It comes early enough that the paper hasn't given enough context to figure out why it's there, so unless you already know, it's just surreal and gives you a faint suspicion that the author is crazy.
The fact that the paper contains the compiler executable (compiled by itself) is just amazing.
Agree that it's amazing, but the paper contains a demo program produced by the compiler, not the compiler itself.
Also the one that hurt me personally from another video: "All I ever do with computers anyway is other computer stuff."
My favorite line from the paper is "the popular and elegant X86 architecture". Very subtle humor, I suspect not many people get it.
the compile-to-IRS-tax-forms one was a gem, too.
Can anybody explain why it can't simply be expressed as (A and B) xor (A xor B)? What am I missing here?
That would have the same problem that after return the BOUND instruction would be re-executed, but perhaps there are useful DOS calls that after execution modify the registers such that the bounds check wouldn't fail afterwards.
There is one video of his that takes it to an extreme: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TFDG-y-EHs - That is not only impossibly bonkers on just about every level, it's also so incredibly useless that the result is not even observable.