Re: C/C++ obfuscator

Louis Krupp <lkrupp@pssw.com>
6 Feb 2005 15:00:07 -0500

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
Re: C/C++ obfuscator gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2005-01-25)
Re: C/C++ obfuscator lkrupp@pssw.NOSPAM.com.INVALID (Louis Krupp) (2005-01-30)
Re: C/C++ obfuscator idbaxter@semdesigns.com (Ira Baxter) (2005-01-30)
Re: C/C++ obfuscator ppluzhnikov@charter.net (Paul Pluzhnikov) (2005-02-03)
Re: C/C++ obfuscator robert.hundt@gmail.com (2005-02-03)
Re: C/C++ obfuscator ppluzhnikov@charter.net (Paul Pluzhnikov) (2005-02-06)
Re: C/C++ obfuscator lkrupp@pssw.com (Louis Krupp) (2005-02-06)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Louis Krupp <lkrupp@pssw.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 6 Feb 2005 15:00:07 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
References: 05-01-074 05-01-087 05-01-093 05-01-103 05-02-005
Keywords: C, tools
Posted-Date: 06 Feb 2005 15:00:07 EST

<snipped, carefully>


>>The source to be shipped would have to be tested on any compiler the
>>customer might use ...
>
>
> Not necessarily: if the original code desn't use
> arcane/not-well-supported language features, then one can test 1
> or 2 compilers, and expect all other combinations to work.
>
> If some compiler/OS combinations turn out not to work, future
> customers may be warned against using those.
>
> The above approach is pretty much what everyone who ships source
> does; shipping obfuscated source is not that different.


I would disagree somewhat and say that the point of writing clean,
predictable code is not so that you don't have to test on all
platforms you intend to support; the point is that when you do all
that testing, the code works, and your life is easier.


Louis

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.