Teach me to remove bloat!

Hey guys, I would like some pointer (no, not that kind) on removing bloat in code. Here is a fully functional piece of code that I wrote which I'm worried about bloat in. How do I shorten this?

int get_input()
{
    int count, paren_count, total_count, c;
    char *input, *temp;

    input = (char *) malloc (500 * sizeof (char));

    if (input == NULL) return 0;
    printf("%% ");
    for (count = paren_count = total_count = 0; (c = getchar()) != EOF; count++, input++, total_count++)
    {
        if (count == 499)
        {
            input -= total_count;
            temp = (char *) realloc (input, (500 + total_count) * sizeof (char));
            if (temp == NULL)
                return 0;
            input = temp;
            input += total_count;
        }
        if (c == '\n')
        {
            *input = '\0';
            temp = input;
            temp -= (count);
            count = 0;
            for (; *temp != '\0'; temp++)
            {
                if (*temp == '(')
                    paren_count++;
                else if (*temp == ')')
                    paren_count--;
            }
            if (paren_count == 0)
                break;
            printf("  ");
        }
        *input = c;
    }
    *temp = '\0';
    input -= total_count;
    printf("%s\n", input);
    free(input);
    return 0;
}

>>80
Either way works just fine really, but beware that if a thread patches some system routines or global values, this could interfere with the other threads and mess things up. I guess those are the dangers of shared program memory. It's not nearly as bad as with the old DOS/Win3.11 shared-memory aproaches since Lisp is much more high-level, but it's still possible for an application to easily crash the whole world if it wants to.

>>78
So, it's more of a [i]^fag[...] Sussman is dead. - LISP^got[i] type situation then. (Try not to mind my active ``faggot-quotes'' research.)

>>79
I can appreciate the utility of a 30MB overhead, but I like to write for small devices. I know almost everything has at least 128MB these days, but my preferred target platform only has 4.

It's okay though. There are lispy enough things that aren't so um bad.

>>82
Well, CL was never intended to be that tiny, maybe some 8MB for a full CL, but I have my doubts. R5RS' could be smaller I guess, or maybe some Lisp500 variant.

>>49
http://llvm.org/

>>82

U mena ^faghaskal^got

Those who thinkk 30MB is nothing should consider that the entire UNIX V7 operating system was less than 10MB.

>>85
Yeha thaanks. The BBCode is not with me tonight.

>>86
Most /prog/lodytes probably don't even consider that to be an interesting fact.

>>87
Most /prog/lodytes
*gasp* all three of them?

>>86
Tinycore linux is 10mb.

>>88
Well no, only two of them.

The other one is probably the guy too obsessed with [biou]my hanux[/biou] to register a thought one way or the other.

>>90
Who wouldn't be, it's a very nice anus, Mr. The Sussman