One of the main instruments of obfuscation (and the way to get more out of the size constraints) is making the code as short as possible, so in that example you'd prefer
reply if (!(x/2-1)) { ...
I checked this in an online C-compiler and it is not equivalent to x==1 | x==2.
replythis statement is equivalent to x==2 | x==3.
For example, x=3, 3/2 = 1 then 1-1 = 0 so that !(0) is 1 or true. Also for x=1, 1/2 = 0 then 0-1 = -1 and !(-1) = 0 or false.
I agree with your point in general though about size constraints.
extrano84 already found some errors but also 0 will fail and if x is int (instead of unsigned int) all negative numbers will also fail (but so will the original s-macke obfuscation as well).
replyIt's pretty easy to see what that does though, even if it is shorter. Wouldn't the other approach be more obfuscated?
replyNot sure what you mean by advanced transformations but I got these versions from ChatGPT without explicit instructions.
reply if(x-1<2&&x)...
if((1<<x)&6)...
if(x<3&x)...
if(3%x&&x<3)...
if(!((x-1)*(x-2)))
if(!(x^1|x^2))...
if(!(x*x-3*x+2))[dead]
replyBut then we all know that LLM has come a long way since one year ago.
replyAre you sure they still can't do it?
Just two months ago I tried to write a short K code with Claude Opus 4.6, only to find that while it had sufficient knowledge about K vocabularies it didn't try to make good use of them. K is, while slightly obscure and obfuscated, a real programming language and certainly better known than obfuscated programming. I don't have high hope for IOCCC-grade obfuscation.
reply