Feedback on wanted port: obskurator

[Frederic Culot]

Thanks for your feedback but unfortunately the result is the same even if I
provide the prototype for printf in the source file.

Frederic

> Frederic Culot <frederic at culot.org> wrote:
> 
> > Following the links on the ports tasks wiki page I found
> > 'obskurator' to be a wanted port ... so I gave it a try
> > and report about it here.
> >
> > obskurator is supposed to obfuscate source code by changing
> > variable names ...
> > I believe the software itself is unusable and should not be
> > added to the ports tree in its current state. Indeed, I wrote a
> > simple code to test the resulting obfuscated program generated
> > by obskurator and it would not compile.
> >
> > Here is my test code:
> >
> > -----
> > #include <stdio.h>
> >
> > int my_int1;
> >
> > int
> > main (void)
> > {
> >   char *my_txt1 = "Hello world";
> >
> >   printf ("first var: %d\n", my_int1);
> >   printf ("second var: %s\n", my_txt1);
> >
> >   return 0;
> > }
> > -----
> >
> > and obskurator transformed it into the following:
> >
> > -----
> > #include <stdio.h>
> >
> > int my_int1;
> >
> > int
> > main (void)
> > {
> >   char *x1 = "Hello world";
> >
> >   x2 ("first var: %d\n", my_int1);
> >   x2 ("second var: %s\n", x1);
> >
> >   return 0;
> > }
> > -----
> >
> > That is obskurator believed printf(3) was a user-defined variable
> > and replaced it with 'x2', which makes the resulting program
> > impossible to compile.
> 
> Does it by any chance work properly if you provide the prototype
> for printf in the source file, instead of depending on the one
> that should be provided by the #included header file?  If it does,
> a possible w/a might be to run the program through CPP first, and
> then through obskurator.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"