The International Obfuscated C Code Contest
Guidelines
[ The judges |
IOCCC
home page |
How to enter |
IOCCC news |
People
who have won |
Winning entries ]
Now serving
The official URL for this page is http://www.ioccc.org/guidelines.html
The International Obfuscated C Code Contest
Guidelines
[ The judges |
IOCCC
home page |
How to enter |
IOCCC news |
People
who have won |
Winning entries ]
Now serving
The official URL for this page is http://www.ioccc.org/guidelines.html
Copyright © Landon Curt Noll, Jeremy Horn, Peter
Seebach and Leonid A. Broukhis, 1998.
All Rights Reserved.
Permission for personal, education or non-profit use
is granted provided this copyright and notice are included in its entirety
and remains unaltered. All other uses must receive prior permission in
writing from the contest judges.
The 15th International Obfuscated C Code Contest
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 1998 rules are denoted by change bars. --->
Not every change is marked in this file is marked, but
most are. :-)
WHAT IS NEW IN 2000:
The contest runs from 01-Feb-2000 00:00 UTC to 31-Mar-2000 23:59 UTC.
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 pass all of the above 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 subtle 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. For example, using gcc
local function declarations, such as:
int
main() {
void blah() { printf("blah\n"); }
blah();
}
are not allowed even though their existence seems tailor made for
this contest! But for now, since they are not in wide spread use
we cannot accept entries that use them.
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 non-whitespace character on a line.
While some broken C preprocessors do not allow whitespace before a
'#', most do.
The exit() function returns void. On some broken systems have exit()
return int. Your entry should assume that exit() returns a void.
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 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 or run under a POSIX P1003.1/P1003.2 like systems
* depend on a utility or application not normally found on most
most POSIX P1003.1/P1003.2 like systems
* abuse 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 :-)
* are identical to future losers (Windows 95) :-)
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 immediately 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. [[Q: What is special about 1681?]]
Please do not use things like gzip to get around the size limit.
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'
source. The smallest, a zero byte entry, won in 1994.
We do not like writable strings. That is, we don't want stuff like:
char *T = "So many primes, so little time!";
...
T[14] = ';';
Please don't make use of this feature, even if your system allows it.
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.
While we recognize that UN*X is not a universal operating system, the
contest does have a bias towards such systems. In an effort to expand
the scope of the contest, we phrase our bias in terms of POSIX P1003.1
and P1003.2 standards. This will allow certain non-UN*X OS users to
submit entries. On the other hand, this is a guideline and not a rule.
We will not reject an entry based on some POSIX technicality.
When dealing with OS and application environments, we suggest that you
be reasonable with a nod towards vanilla UN*X-like systems. POSIX will
evolve but not as much as the contest, so avoid stuff like POSIX real
time, security, etc.
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 <== HINT!!
* make us laugh and/or throw up :-) (humor helps!)
Some types of programs can't excel (tm) in some areas. Of course, your
program doesn't have to excel in all areas, but doing well in several
areas really does help.
You are better off explaining what your entry does in the
---remark--- section rather than leaving it obscure for the judges
as we might miss something and/or be too tired to notice.
We freely admit that interesting, creative or humorous comments in
the ---remark--- section help your chances of winning. If you had to
read so many twisted entries, you too would enjoy a good laugh or two.
We think the readers of the contest winners do as well. We do read
the ---remark--- section during the judging process, so it is worth
your while to write a remarkable ---remark--- section.
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 too
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 rule abuses, are
done in a minimal fashion. Often 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 of 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 EMail to the judges. (see below)
The following is a sample entry (the | change bars are not part
of the example, don't add them to your entry!)
---entry---
rule: 2000
fix: y
title: chlejhse
entry: 0
date: Wed Feb 2 00:47:00 2000
host: Un*x v6, pdp11/45
2.9BSD, pdp11/70
---remark---
This is a not-very-obfuscated C program. It is likely not to win a
prize, because it doesn't have what it takes to win and because the
author plans to forget to send it in before the deadline! :-)
---author---
name: Landon Curt Noll
org: IOCCC Judging Group
addr: Toad Hall
PO Box 170608
San Francisco, California
94117-0608
USA
Earth
email: chongo@no_spam.fake.address
nobody@toad.com
url: http:///reality.sgi.com/chongo
anon: y
---author---
name: Leonid A. Broukhis
org: IOCCC Judging Group
addr: Toad Hall
PO Box 170608
San Francisco, California
94117-0608
USA
email: leob@no_spam.fake_org
url: http://www.mailcom.com/main.shtml
anon: n
---author---
name: Jeremy Horn
org: IOCCC Judging Group
addr: Toad Hall
PO Box 170608
San Francisco, California
94117-0608
USA
email: jhorn@no_spam.fake_edu
url: none
anon: n
---author---
name: Peter Seebach
org: IOCCC Judging Group
addr: Toad Hall
PO Box 170608
San Francisco, California
94117-0608
USA
email: seebs@no_spam.fake_com
url: none
anon: y
---info---
begin 444 info.file
M5&AI<#HO+W)E M86QI='DN<#HO+W=W=RYI;V-C8RYO><*"E1H M870@=&AA="!I>2$I+"!O;F4@;6EG:'0@2!P2!A8W1U86QL>2!D96-O9&5D
M(' 1H:7 , @9FEL92X@($EN"C$Y.3,@86YD(#$Y.30@82!F97<@;6]R92!D:60@ M=&AE( '-A;64N("!);B`Q.3DU+"!A(&YU;6)E2!D96-O9&5D(' 1H:7 , @ M9FEL92X@( %-E96US('1H97)E(&ES(&$*><&4A("`Z+2D*"E=H>2!D;VXG="!Y;W4@=&5L;"!U
M6]U(&1E8V]D960@=&AI<@14UA:6P@ M=&\Z"@H)><75E>&%M<&QE(&9I;&4@86YD('!R;V=R86T@9F]R M( '1H:7,*6]U(&1O('-E;F0@:7,@82!B971T
M97(@97AA;7!L92!F:6QE+"!B92!W87)N960@+BXN"G1H870@:70@8V%N;F]T
M(&)E(&-O;G-I9&5R960@87,@82!C;VYT97-T(&5N=')Y+B`@4V\@>6]U(&UI
M9VAT(&YO=`IW86YT('1O('-E;F0@:6X@>6]U6]U2!O8F9U&%M<&QE+@H@("`@("HO"B`@("!P&%M<&QE+EQN M( BD["B`@( "!P<;B(I.PH@("`@><')I;G1F*")S96YD M( '5S(' =I;&P@;F]T(&)E(&-O;G-I9&5R960@87,@86X@96YT>6]U<;B(I M.PH@( "`@<')I;G1F*" ( N+BX@><@*B\*(VEF("%D969I;F5D*%-)3$Q97T1%1DE.12D*("`@(&UA F:6XH*3L*( V5N9&EF"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. Please note that the title must match the following regexp: ^[a-zA-Z0-9_=][a-zA-Z0-9_=+-]*$ >and must be 1 to 31 chars in length. Titles such as:
foo.c
this_invalid_title_is_too_long !
/dev/null
are right out! :-)
Titles can be 31 chars long now, but please try to keep them short.
Why 31? Because at least one of the judges likes Mersenne primes!
It is suggested, but not required, that the title should incorporate
the author(s) username(s).
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 us to see it. (Our decoding tools are not AI
progs!) If you need tell the judges something, put it in the
---remark--- section, or send a EMail to:
questions@ioccc.org (not the address for 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:
Wed Feb 2 00:47:00 2000
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 20%y"
date -u | sed -e 's/... \(20[0-9][0-9]\)$/\1/'
sh -c 'TZ=UTC date | sed -e "s/... \(20[0-9][0-9]\)$/\1/"'
sh -c 'TZ=GMT date | sed -e "s/... \(20[0-9][0-9]\)$/\1/"'
sh -c 'TZ=GMT0 date | sed -e "s/... \(20[0-9][0-9]\)$/\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 Leonid A. Broukhis, Jeremy Horn, Landon Curt Noll
and Peter Seebach.
Entries are unpacked into individual directories. The EMail message
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 message 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 and the title from the ---entry--- section
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 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 and 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
skipping over any #include files
* performing a number of C beautify/cleanup edits on the source
* passing the beautified source thru the C pre-processor
skipping over any #include files
In later rounds, other actions are performed:
* linting the source
* compiling/building the source
* running the program
* performing miscellaneous 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 os 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 than 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 entries. More often, the
'best' is picked because it does well in a number of categories.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF WINNERS:
The first announcement, occurs at the main Usenix conference. By
tradition, this is done during the IOCCC BOF. Like in 1999,
an announcement may take place on the web first in May 2000, just
before the conference.
Winning entries will be posted in June to the following groups:
comp.lang.c comp.lang.c.moderated alt.sources
In addition, pointers to these postings are posted to the following
comp.sources.misc comp.windows.x comp.programming
misc.misc comp.std.c alt.folklore.computers
Winning entries will be deposited into the uunet archives. See
below for details.
Often, winning entries are published in selected magazines from around
the world. 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 EMail to the following address:
questions@ioccc.org (not the address for 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. To obtain them, send EMail to the address
above and use the subject 'send rules'.
Check out the IOCCC Web page:
http://www.ioccc.org
It has rules, guidelines and winners of previous contests (1984 to date).
As a last resort, previous winners may be obtained by sending EMail
to questions@ioccc.org. Please use the subject 'send YEAR winners',
where YEAR is a single 4 digit year or a year range (such as 1993-1994),
or the word 'all'.
And now for the fine print:-)
Some of the changes from the 1998 rules have been denoted
by color. All decisions of the judges
are their
own decisions. This contest is NULL and void* where prohibitied
by brain damaged compilers. The judges and
winners are not responsible for the laws of physics,
the compositeness of 2^11-1, eye strain or the corruption
of the programming of the impressionable. (still reading
this are you?) Ok, if you read this far I guess we can
get to the real reason for this disclaimer ...
This page is an attempt to render the guidelines into
HTML. While we tried to make this page reflect the guidelines, we
may have made some mistakes. For this reason, this page
is not the official rule set. And the same reason, the
rules page is not the
official rules set.
When in doubt, consult the official rules and consult the official guidelines .
Credits:
Authored by:
chongo <was here> /\oo/\