mirror/ioccc
1
0 Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Rename */guidelines to */guidelines.txt

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Cody Boone Ferguson committed 2023-02-23 04:43:06 -08:00
1 parent aa77adb0c3
commit 3a59f521ff
9 files changed
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

No files matched your search

1994/guidelines.txt
+677
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,677 @@
11th International Obfuscated C Code Contest Guidelines, Hints and Comments
Copyright (c) Landon Curt Noll & Larry Bassel, 1994.
All Rights Reserved. Permission for personal, education or non-profit use is
granted provided this this copyright and notice are included in its entirety
and remains unaltered. All other uses must receive prior permission in writing
from both Landon Curt Noll and Larry Bassel.
ABOUT THIS FILE:
This file is intended to help people who wish to submit entries to
the International Obfuscated C Code Contest (IOCCC for short).
This is not the IOCCC rules, though it does contain comments about
them. The guidelines should be viewed as hints and suggestions.
Entries that violate the guidelines but remain within the rules are
allowed. Even so, you are safer if you remain within the guidelines.
You should read the current IOCCC rules, prior to submitting entries.
The rules are typically sent out with these guidelines.
Changes from the original 1993 rules are denoted by change bars. ---> |
WHAT IS NEW IN 1994: |
It now appears that most ANSI C compilers allow indexes to be of |
non-integral type. Unlike last year, we now allow one to use |
constructs such as: |
int h; |
char *i; |
... |
h[i] = (h+3)["string"]; |
The ---build--- section may use "gcc" or "cc" commands. However, your |
entry should be compilable with any ANSI C compiler. You should not |
depend on a gcc specific feature. |
The order of your entry's sections must be the same as the order of |
the rule template or the example below. |
We have added a new rule regarding rule abuse. The guidelines expand |
on the rule abuse aspect of the contest. |
A suggestion regarding VTxxx/ANSI escape sequences has been given. |
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS:
You are encouraged to examine the winners of previous contests. See
FOR MORE INFORMATION for details on how to get previous winners.
Keep in mind that rules change from year to year, so some winning entries
may not be valid entries this year. What was unique and novel one year
might be 'old' the next year.
An entry is usually examined in a number of ways. We typically apply
a number of tests to an entry:
* look at the original source
* convert ANSI tri-graphs to ASCII
* C pre-process the source ignoring '#include' lines
* C pre-process the source ignoring '#define' and '#include' lines
* run it through a C beautifier
* examine the algorithm
* lint it
* compile it
* execute it
You should consider how your entry looks in each of the above tests.
You should ask yourself if your entry remains obscure after it has been
'cleaned up' by the C pre-processor and a C beautifier.
Your entry need not do well under all, or in most tests. In certain
cases, a test is not important. Entries that compete for the
'strangest/most creative source layout' need not do as well as
others in terms of their algorithm. On the other hand, given
two such entries, we are more inclined to pick the entry that
does something interesting when you run it.
We try to avoid limiting creativity in our rules. As such, we leave
the contest open for creative rule interpretation. As in real life
programming, interpreting a requirements document or a customer request
is important. For this reason, we often award 'worst abuse of the
rules' to an entry that illustrates this point in an ironic way.
We do realize that there are holes in the rules, and invite entries
to attempt to exploit them. We will award 'worst abuse of the rules'
and then plug the hole next year. Even so, we will attempt to use
the smallest plug needed, if not smaller. :-)
Check out your program and be sure that it works. We sometimes make
the effort to debug an entry that has a slight problem, particularly
in or near the final round. On the other hand, we have seen some
of the best entries fall down because they didn't work.
We tend to look down on a prime number printer, that claims that
16 is a prime number. If you do have a bug, you are better off
documenting it. Noting "this entry sometimes prints the 4th power
of a prime by mistake" would save the above entry. And sometimes,
a strange bug/feature can even help the entry! Of course, a correctly
working entry is best.
People who are considering to just use some complex mathematical |
function or state machine to spell out something such as "hello, |
world!" may want to try and be more creative. |
Ultra-obfuscated programs are in some cases some cases easier to |
deobfuscate than subtly-obfuscated programs. Consider using |
misleading or subtitle tricks layered on top of or under an |
appropriate level of obfuscation. |
Programs that use VTxxx/ANSI sequences that are NOT limited to a |
specific terminal brand and that can also work in a standard xterm |
are considered portable. |
OUR LIKES AND DISLIKES:
Doing masses of #defines to obscure the source has become 'old'. We
tend to 'see thru' masses of #defines due to our pre-processor tests
that we apply. Simply abusing #defines or -Dfoo=bar won't go as far
as a program that is more well rounded in confusion.
Many ANSI C compilers dislike the following code, and so do we:
#define d define
#d foo <-- don't expect this to turn into #define foo
When declaring local or global variables, you should declare the type: |
int this_is_ok; |
this_is_not; <-- don't use such implicit type declaration |
We suggest that you compile your entry with an ANSI C compiler. If you
must use non-ANSI C, such as K&R C, you must avoid areas that result in
compile/link errors for ANSI C compilers.
If your entry uses functions that have a variable number of
arguments, be careful. Systems implement va_list as a wide variety
of ways. Because of this, a number of operations using va_list are
not portable and must not be used:
* assigning a non-va_list variable to/from a va_list variable
* casting a non-va_list variable into/from a va_list variable
* passing a va_list variable to a function expecting a non-va_list arg
* passing a non-va_list variable to a function expecting a va_list arg
* performing arithmetic on va_list variables
* using va_list as a structure or union
In particular, do not treat va_list variables as if they were a char **'s.
Avoid using <varargs.h>. Use <stdarg.h> instead.
If you use C preprocessor directives (#define, #if, #ifdef, ...),
the leading '#' must be the first character on a line. While some
C preprocessors allow whitespace the leading '#', many do not.
Because the exit() function returns void on some systems, entries
must not assume that it returns an int.
Small programs are best when they are short, obscure and concise.
While such programs are not as complex as other winners, they do
serve a useful purpose. They are often the only program that people
attempt to completely understand. For this reason, we look for
programs that are compact, and are instructional.
One line programs should be short one line programs, say around 80
bytes long. Getting close to 160 bytes is a bit too long in our opinion.
We tend to dislike programs that:
* are very hardware specific
* are very OS or Un*x version specific
(index/strchr differences are ok, but socket/streams specific
code is likely not to be)
* dump core or have compiler warnings
(it is ok only if you warn us in the 'remark' header item)
* won't compile under both BSD or SYS V like Un*x systems |
* abusing the build file to get around the size limit
* obfuscate by excessive use of ANSI tri-graphs
* are longer than they need to be
* are similar to previous winners
* are identical to previous losers :-)
Unless you are cramped for space, or unless you are entering the
'best one liner' category, we suggest that you format your program
in a more creative way than simply forming excessively long lines.
The build file should not be used to try and get around the size
limit. It is one thing to make use of a several -D's to help out,
but it is quite another to use 200+ bytes of -D's in order to
try and squeeze the source under the size limit. You should feel
free to make use of the build file space, but you are better off
if you show some amount of restraint.
We want to get away from source that is simply a compact blob of |
characters. To help, we give a break to source that contains |
whitespace, and in certain cases ; { or } characters. While the |
number of characters excluding whitespace (tab, space, newline), |
and excluding any ; { or } followed by either whitespace or end of |
file, must be <= 1536, the total size may be less than 3217 |
bytes. This means that one may use "free of charge" up to 1681 |
bytes of whitespace, or ; { or } followed by either whitespace |
or end of file. |
Given two versions of the same program, one that is a compact blob
of code, and the other that is formatted more like a typical C
program, we tend to favor the second version. Of course, a third
version of the same program that is formatted in an interesting
and/or obfuscated way, would definitely win over the first two!
We suggest that you avoid trying for the 'smallest self-replicating'
program. We are amazed at the many different sizes that claim
to be the smallest. There is nothing wrong with self-replicating
programs. In fact, a number of winners have been self-replicating.
You might want to avoid the claim of 'smallest', lest we (or others)
know of a smaller one!
We tend to dislike writable strings. That is, we want to avoid: |
char *T = "So many primes, so little time!"; |
... |
T[14] = ';'; |
You may use writable strings if you really must. If you do depend |
on them, you must say do in the ---remark--- section. |
X client entries should be as portable as possible. Entries that
adapt to a wide collection of environments will be favored. Don't
depend on a particular type of display. For example, don't depend
on color or a given size. Don't require backing store.
X client entries should avoid using X related libraries and
software that is not in wide spread use. We ask that such X client
entries restrict themselves to only the low level Xlib and the
Athena widget set (libX11.a, libXaw.a, libXmu.a and libXt.a).
Don't use M*tif, Xv*ew, or OpenL*ok toolkits, since not everyone
has them. Avoid depending on a particular window manager. Not
everyone has X11r5, and some people are stuck back in X11r4 (or
earlier), so try to target X11r5 without requiring X11r5. Better
yet, try to make your entry run on all version 11 X Window Systems.
X client entries should not to depend on particular items on
.Xdefaults. If you must do so, be sure to note the required lines
in the ---remark--- section.
We like programs that:
* are as concise and small as they need to be
* do something at least quasi-interesting
* pass lint without complaint (not a requirement, but it is nice)
* are portable
* are unique or novel in their obfuscation style
* MAKE USE OF A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF OBFUSCATION
* make us laugh and/or throw up :-)
Some types of programs can't excel in some areas. Of course, your
program doesn't have to excel in all areas, but doing well in several
areas really does help.
We freely admit that interesting, creative or humorous comments in
the ---remark--- section helps your chance of winning. If you had to
read of many twisted entries, you too would enjoy a good laugh or two.
We think the readers of the contest winners do as well.
Be creative!
ABUSING THE RULES: |
Legal abuse of the rules is somewhat encouraged. Legal rule abuse may |
involve, but is not limited to, doing things that are technically |
allowed by the rules and yet do not fit the spirit of what we |
intended to be submitted. |
Legal rule abuse is encouraged to help promote creativity. Rule |
abuse entries, regardless of if they receive an award, result in |
changes to the next year's rules and guidelines. |
Legal abuse of the rules is NOT an invitation to violate the |
rules. An entry that violates the rules in the opinion of the |
judges, WILL be disqualified. RULE ABUSE CARRIES A CERTAIN LEVEL |
OF RISK! If you have an entry that might otherwise be interesting, |
you might want to submit two versions; one that does not abuse the |
rules and one that does. |
If you intend to abuse the rules, indicate so in the ---remark--- |
section. You must try to justify why you consider your rule abuse |
to be allowed under the rules. That is, you must plead your case |
as to why your entry is valid. Humor and/or creativity help plead |
a case. |
Abusing the entry format tends to annoy us more than amuse us. |
We are often asked why the contest rules and guidelines seem to |
strange or contain mistakes, flaws or grammatical errors. |
One reason is that we sometimes make genuine mistakes. But in many |
cases such problems, flaws or areas of confusion are deliberate. |
Changes to rules and guidelines in response to a rule abuses, are |
done in a minimal fashion. Often the we will deliberately leave |
behind holes (or introduce new ones) so that future rule abuse may |
continue.
At the risk of stating the obvious, this contest is a parity the |
software development process. The rules and guidelines are |
only a small part of the overall contest. Even so, one may think |
the contest rule and guideline process as a parody of the sometimes |
tragic mismatch between what a customer (or marketing) wants and |
what engineering delivers. |
ENTRY FORMAT:
In order to help us process the many entries, we must request your
assistance by formatting your entries in a certain way. This format,
in addition, allows us to quickly separate information about the
author from the program itself. (see JUDGING PROCESS)
We have provided the program, mkentry, as an example of how to
format entries. You should be aware of the following warning that
is found in mkentry.c:
This program attempts to implement the IOCCC rules. Every
attempt has been made to make sure that this program produces
an entry that conforms to the contest rules. In all cases,
where this program differs from the contest rules, the
contest rules will be used. Be sure to check with the
contest rules before submitting an entry.
You are not required to use mkentry. It is convenient, however,
as it attempts to uuencode the needed files, and attempt to check
the entry against the size rules.
If you have any suggestions, comments, fixes or complaints about
the mkentry.c program, please send an email to the judges. (see below)
The following is a sample entry:
---entry---
rule: 1994
fix: n
title: chonglab
entry: 0
date: Thu Mar 3 13:23:14 1994
host: Un*x v6, pdp11/45
2.9BSD, pdp11/70
---remark---
This is a non-obfuscated obfuscated C program.
It is likely not to win a prize. But what do you expect from
a short example!
---author---
name: Landon Curt Noll
org: IOCCC Judging Group
addr: Toad Hall
PO Box 170608
San Francisco, California
94117-0608
USA
email: {chongo,noll}@{toad,sgi}.com
anon: n
---author---
name: Larry Bassel
org: IOCCC Judging Group
addr: Toad Hall
PO Box 170608
San Francisco, California
94117-0608
USA
email: hoptoad!sun!lab
lab@sun.com
anon: n
---info---
begin 444 info.file
M0V]P>7)I9VAT("AC*2!,86YD;VX@0W5R="!.;VQL+"`Q.3DS+@I!;&P@4FEG
M:'1S(%)E<V5R=F5D+B`@4&5R;6ES<VEO;B!F;W(@<&5R<V]N86PL(&5D=6-A
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M5&AA="!T:&%T(&ES(&YO="P*("`@(&ES(&YO="!T:&%T('1H870@;F]T(&ES
M+@I4:&%T(&ES+"!T:&%T('1H870@:7,@;F]T+"!I<R$*"@D)+2T@8VAO;F=O
M(#$Y-S0*"DEN(#$Y.3(L(&]N92!P97)S;VX@=&]L9"!U<R!T:&%T('1H97D@
M86-T=6%L;'D@9&5C;V1E9"!T:&ES(&9I;&4N("!);@HQ.3DS(&$@9F5W(&UO
M<F4@9&ED('1H92!S86UE+B`@22!W;VYD97(@:&]W(&UA;GD@=VEL;"!D;R!I
-="!T:&ES('EE87(_"@``
`
end
---build---
begin 444 build
99V-C("UA;G-I('!R;V<N8R`M;R!P<F]G"@``
`
end
---program---
begin 444 prog.c
M;6%I;B@I"GL*(VEF("%D969I;F5D*$Y/5%]!7U)%1TE35$52141?5D]415)?
M24Y?4U5.3EE604Q%7T-!3$E&3U).24%?55-!*0H@("`@<')I;G1F*"),86YD
M;VX@3F]L;"!W87,@96QE8W1E9"!T;R!A(#0@>65A<B!T97)M(&]N('1H92!3
M=6YN>79A;&5<;B(I.PH@("`@<')I;G1F*")#:71Y($-O=6YC:6PN("!4:&%N
M:R!Y;W4A7&Y<;B(I.PHC96YD:68*("`@('!R:6YT9B@B4W5N;GEV86QE(')E
M;&%T960@14UA:6P@;6%Y(&)E('-E;G0@=&\Z(&YO;&Q`;F-D+F-O;2Y<;EQN
M(BD["@H@("`@<')I;G1F*")!="!T:&4@=&EM92!T:&ES('=A<R!W<FET=&5N
M+"!3=6YN>79A;&4@:&%D(&YO="!Y970@;V)T86EN961<;B(I.PH@("`@<')I
M;G1F*")A(&1O;6%I;BP@8G5T('!L86YN960@=&\@9&\@<V\@:6X@9G5T=7)E
@+EQN(BD["B`@("!E>&ET*#(Q-S`Q("4@,3(W*3L*?0H`
`
end
---end---
Your entry's sections must be the same order as in the above example. |
Typically the build file should assume that the source is prog.c
and will compile into prog. If an entry wins, we will rename
its source and binary to avoid filename collision. By tradition,
we use the name of the entry's title, followed by an optional
digit in case of name conflicts.
If the above entry somehow won the 'least likely to win' award,
we would use chonglab.c and chonglab.
If your entry depends on, or requires that your build, source
and/or binary files be a particular name, please say so in the
---remark--- section. If this case applies, it would be be helpful
if you did one of the following:
* Tell us how to change the filename(s) in your entry.
* Have the build file make copies of the files. For example:
cc prog.c -o special_name |
or rm -f special_src.c |
cp prog.c special_src.c
cc special_src.c -o special_name
or rm -f special_build |
tail +4 build > special_build
sh < special_build
* Assume that we will use the entry title. Send us a version of
your build/program files that uses the name convention. You
should uuencode these files in ---info--- sections. |
If your entry needs to modify its source, info or binary files,
please say so in the ---remark--- section. You should try to avoid
touching your original build, source and binary files. You should
arrange to make copies of the files you intend to modify. This
will allow people to re-generate your entry from scratch.
Remember that your entry may be built without a build file. We
typically incorporate the build lines into a Makefile. If the
build file must exist, say so in the ---remark--- section.
Typically the ---build--- command will contain a "cc" command. |
It is also ok to use a "gcc" command (and gcc args). However keep |
in mind that your entry should be compilable by any standard ANSI C |
compiler and thus should not depend on a special gcc feature. |
If your entry needs special info files, you should uuencode them
into ---info--- sections. In the case of multiple info files,
use multiple ---info--- sections. If no info files are needed,
then skip the ---info--- section.
Info files are intended to be input, or detailed information that
does not fit well into the ---remark--- section. For example, an
entry that implements a compiler might want to provide some sample
programs for the user to compile. An entry might want to include a
lengthy design document, that might not be appropriate for a
'hints' file.
Info files should be used only to supplement your entry. For
example, info files may provide sample input or detailed
information about your entry. Because they are supplemental,
the entry should not require them exist.
In some cases, your info files might be renamed to avoid name
conflicts. If info files should not be renamed for some reason,
say so in the ---remark--- section.
Info files must uudecode into the current directory. If they
absolutely must be renamed, or moved into a sub-directory, say
so in the ---remark--- section.
When submitting multiple entries, be sure that each entry has
a unique entry number from 0 to 7. Your first entry should
have entry number 0.
With the exception of the header, all text outside of the entry
format may be ignored. That is, don't place text outside of the
entry and expect the us to see it. (Our decoding tools are |
not AI progs!) If you need tell the something, put it in |
the ---remark--- section, or send an email to the us at: |
...!{apple,pyramid,sun,uunet}!hoptoad!judges (not the address for
judges@toad.com submitting entries)
The date should be given with respect to UTC. (Some systems refer
to this as GMT or GMT0) The format of the date should be that as
returned by asctime() in the C locale. An example of such a string is:
Fri Apr 01 00:47:00 1994 |
This format is similar to the output of the date(1) command. The
string does not include the timezone name before the year. On many
systems, one of the following command will produce a similar string:
date -u "+%a %h %d %T 19%y"
date -u | sed -e 's/... \(19[0-9][0-9]\)$/\1/'
sh -c 'TZ=UTC date | sed -e "s/... \(19[0-9][0-9]\)$/\1/"'
sh -c 'TZ=GMT date | sed -e "s/... \(19[0-9][0-9]\)$/\1/"'
sh -c 'TZ=GMT0 date | sed -e "s/... \(19[0-9][0-9]\)$/\1/"'
You are allowed to update/fix/revise your entry. To do so, set
the 'fix' line in the ---entry--- section to 'y' instead of 'n'.
Be sure that the resubmission uses the same title and entry number
as well, as these are used to determine which entry is to be
replaced.
JUDGING PROCESS:
Entries are judged by Larry Bassel and Landon Curt Noll.
Entries are unpacked into individual directories. The email
is unpacked into individual files, each containing:
---entry--- section
all ---author--- sections
all ---info--- sections
---build--- section
---program--- section
any other text, including the email headers
Prior to judging, the 'any other text' file is scanned to be sure
it does not contain useful information (or in case the entry was
malformed and did not unpack correctly). Information from the
---author--- sections are not read until the judging process is
complete, and then only from entries that have won an award.
The above process helps keep us biased for/against any one particular
individual. We are usually kept in the dark as much as you are
until the final awards are given. We like the surprise of finding
out in the end, who won and where they were from.
We attempt to keep all entries anonymous, unless they win an award.
Because the main 'prize' of winning is being announced, we make all
attempts to send non-winners into oblivion. We remove all non-winning
files, and shred all related paper. By tradition, we do not even
reveal the number of entries that we received. (for the curious,
we do indicate the volume of paper consumed when presenting the IOCCC
winners at talks)
After the Usenix announcement, we attempt to send an email to the
authors of the winning entries. One reason we do this is to give
the authors a chance to comment on the way we have presented their
entry. They are given the chance to correct mistakes, typos. We
often accept their suggestions/comments about our remarks as well.
This is done prior to posting the winners to the wide world.
Judging consists of a number of elimination rounds. During a round,
the collection of entries are divided into two roughly equal piles;
the pile that advances on to the next round, and the pile that does
not. We also re-examine the entries that were eliminated in the
previous round. Thus, an entry gets at least two readings.
A reading consists of a number of actions:
* reading the ---entry--- section
* reading the uudecoded ---build--- section
* reading the uudecoded ---program--- section
* reading the uudecoded ---info--- section(s), if any
* passing the source thru the C pre-processor
shipping over any #include files
* performing a number of C beautify/cleanup edits on the source
* passing the beautified source thru the C pre-processor
shipping over any #include files
In later rounds, other actions are performed:
* linting the source
* compiling/building the source
* running the program
* performing misc tests on the source and binary
Until we reduce the stack of entries down to about 25 entries, entries
are judged on an individual basis. An entry is set aside because it
does not, in our opinion, meet the standard established by the round.
When the number of entries thins to about 25 entries, we begin to form
award categories. Entries begin to compete with each other for awards.
An entry often will compete in several categories.
The actual award category list will vary depending on the types of entries
we receive. A typical category list might be:
* best small one line program
* best small program
* strangest/most creative source layout
* most useful obfuscated program
* best game that is obfuscated
* most creatively obfuscated program
* most deceptive C code
* best X client (see OUR LIKES AND DISLIKES)
* best abuse of ANSI C
* worst abuse of the rules
* <anything else so strange that it deserves an award>
We do not limit ourselves to this list. For example, a few entries are so
good/bad that they are declared winners at the start of the final round.
We will invent awards categories for them, if necessary.
In the final round process, we perform the difficult tasks of
reducing the remaining entries (typically about 25) down to 8 or 10
winners. Often we are confident that the entries that make it into
the final round are definitely better than the ones that do not
make it. The selection of the winners out of the final round, is
less clear cut.
Sometimes a final round entry good enough to win, but is beat out
by a similar, but slightly better entry. For this reason, it is
sometimes worthwhile to re-enter an improved version of an entry
that failed to win in a previous year. This assumes, of course,
that the entry is worth improving in the first place!
More often that not, we select a small entry (usually one line), a
strange/creative layout entry, and an entry that abuses the contest
rules in some way.
In the end, we traditionally pick one entry as 'best'. Sometimes such
an entry simply far exceeds any of the other entry. More often, the
'best' is picked because it does well in a number of categories.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF WINNERS:
The first announcement, occurs at a Summer Usenix conference. By tradition,
this is done during the latter part of the UUNET/IOCCC BOF, just prior to
the Berkeley BSD, and BSDI BOF.
Winning entries will be posted in late June to the following groups:
comp.lang.c comp.unix.wizards alt.sources
In addition, pointers to these postings are posted to the following
comp.sources.d alt.sources.d misc.misc
comp.sources.misc comp.windows.x
Winning entries will be deposited into the uunet archives. See
below for details.
Often, winning entries are published in selected magazines. Winners
have appeared in books ("The New Hackers Dictionary") and on T-Shirts.
Last, but not least, winners receive international fame and flames! :-)
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
You may contact the judges by sending an email to the following address:
...!{apple,pyramid,sun,uunet}!hoptoad!judges (not the address for
judges@toad.com submitting entries)
Questions and comments about the contest are welcome. Comments about |
confusing rules and guidelines are also welcome. |
The rules and the guidelines may (and often do) change from year to |
year. You should be sure you have the current rules and guidelines |
prior to submitting entries.
chongo <Landon Curt Noll> /\cc/\ {chongo,noll}@{toad,sgi}.com
Larry Bassel lab@sun.com