OTOH we're trying to write self-compiling executable C scripts, so the safety, correctness and good sense ships sailed a while back.
mananaysiempre · 31d ago
Compiler errors won’t cause as many funny consequences with
gcc "$0" -o "$@".out && exec ./"$@".out || exit $? # I'd use ${0%.c} not $@
Love this trick too, but the difference, as far as I understand, is that it only works with a Bourne(-compatible) shell, whereas shebangs or binfmt_misc also work with exec().
ckastner · 31d ago
Oh this is neat. Took me a bit.
The shell treats the first line as a comment. It executes the second line, which eventually exec's the binary so the rest of the file do not matter to the shell.
And the compiler treats the first line as a preprocessor directive, so it ignores the second line.
I initially misread/mistook the first line for a shebang.
AlotOfReading · 31d ago
You can also #embed the compiler binary, and execve it to much the same effect as binfmtc. I explored that trick for an IOCC entry that was never submitted because it ended up far too readable.
suprjami · 30d ago
Is there a way to do this and have the shell remove the temporary file after exec?
teo_zero · 30d ago
Yes, but it's not worth it. It's better to forget gcc and use tcc instead, which has the -run flag to compile and run without creating any intermediate file. It's also much quicker than gcc.
1vuio0pswjnm7 · 30d ago
There are many, no doubt
#if 0
cc -static -pipe -xc "$0"||exit 100
exec ./a.out
#endif
int puts(const char *);
int unlink(const char *);
int main(int argc,char *argv[]){
puts("it works");
unlink(argv[0]);
return 0;
}
pwdisswordfishz · 30d ago
Or even
/*bin/true ; exec tcc -run "$0" "$@" # */
nrclark · 30d ago
I'd have expected this to need a hashbang (#!/bin/sh) at the beginning. Why doesn't it?
rwmj · 29d ago
Because your shell will execute anything that looks like a text file & has +x bit set as a shell script.
This is a neat hack, but the whole file is not a valid C program.
kazinator · 30d ago
You mean it consists of a C program, plus non-C cruft to get it running?
Isn't that already legitimized by configure scripts, compiler command lines and Make files?
enriquto · 30d ago
of course it is legitimized. I just meant that the selling point of binfmtc is that the same .c file can either be compiled by any C compiler, or executed directly.
kazinator · 30d ago
We could perhaps split it into a two-file system where a "foo.sh" containing certain boilerplate will execute a "foo.c" that doesn't require any special conventions at all.
"foo.sh" could be identical for any .c file, and so we could symbolically link them all to a common file.
Of course, neither that file nor symlinks to it require a .sh suffix.
The contents might look like this:
#!/bin/sh
c_file=${0%.sh}.c
x_file=${0%.sh}.bin
# If cached executable file is missing, or out of date w.r.t.
# the source file, compile it:
if [ "$c_file" -nt "$x_file" ]; then
cc $CFLAGS "$c_file" -o "$x_file"
fi
# Run cached executable file
$x_file
codr7 · 31d ago
I did a simple hack for doing the same thing from inside a C program for my book:
was surprised that "sudo apt install binfmtc" works out of the box on my box (linux mint) and i can do the magic just as described here
rurban · 30d ago
(2006)
JSR_FDED · 31d ago
C is still my first love. You can hold the whole language in your head, and it’s fast. Yes there are footguns but it’s a libertarian programming language - you’re responsible for what you build. No hand holding.
ykonstant · 31d ago
I like that too, but the problem is that C doesn't keep its end of the deal. No hand holding, but make what you are doing transparent. It used to be the case back in the 80s, but not anymore. Not with our optimizing compilers and oodles of UB and spec subtleties and implicit actions.
There's a similar cute trick for compiled OCaml scripts that we use with nbdkit: https://libguestfs.org/nbdkit-cc-plugin.3.html#Using-this-pl...
In the trivial case exposed here where there are no additional arguments to pass to the .c program, the shell executes
and it works "by chance".In a more complex scenario where print.c expects some parameters, it won't work. For example,
will result in the shell trying to invoke which makes no sense.Are you sure you didn't intend $0 instead of $@ ?
OTOH we're trying to write self-compiling executable C scripts, so the safety, correctness and good sense ships sailed a while back.
The shell treats the first line as a comment. It executes the second line, which eventually exec's the binary so the rest of the file do not matter to the shell.
And the compiler treats the first line as a preprocessor directive, so it ignores the second line.
I initially misread/mistook the first line for a shebang.
What is the benefit of registering an extension via binfmt_misc?
https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Multiline_shebang#C
Isn't that already legitimized by configure scripts, compiler command lines and Make files?
"foo.sh" could be identical for any .c file, and so we could symbolically link them all to a common file.
Of course, neither that file nor symlinks to it require a .sh suffix.
The contents might look like this:
https://github.com/codr7/hacktical-c/tree/main/dynamic