3 ms·

decompilers are close to "perfect" (and can sometimes even be better than reading the original source code!) Citation needed.

mplewis9z 2y ago
I have definitely read some teammates’ code that felt like it would be more readable doing a compiler-decompiler round-trip. Never actually did it, but I doubt it would be less readable than that seemingly intentionally obfuscated garbage.
- InDubioProRubio 2y ago
  Cant want for the jetbrains "deabstract" plugin, that compiles it, decompiles it and reconstructs a indirection free AST and then cleaner code from that AST via AI. De-Tech-Bro-My-Code. Pull the plug on all-the-patterns in one project devs and get cleaner code today. Refactor> ThrowIt> IntoTheBin
userbinator 2y ago
Personal experience. There is a lot of decompiler research which isn't public. A sibling comment mentions Hex-Rays and Ghidra. Those are only now slowly approaching the capabilities of what I've used. The fact that the majority of code tends to not be intentionally obfuscated and is compiler-generated and thus easily pattern-matched also makes it quite straightforward. Of course the fact that decompilers are often used on code that is (e.g. malware, DRM) skews a lot of people's perceptions.
- jchw 2y ago
  Just to be completely clear, the conditions I have been using Ghidra/Hex-Rays/BN with were not that bad. I wasn't analyzing malware or heavily-DRM'd software. Even with symbols and full debug info, many of those gripes still apply. (Hex-Rays is able to do a lot more with debug info. It can usually get a lot of the vtable indirections typed correctly, including with a bit of effort, multi-inheritance offset this pointers.) I'd love to see this non-public decompiler research but I have some skepticism, as a lot of the information that is lost would require domain-specific reconstruction to get back to anywhere near full fidelity. I do not deny that you have seen impressive results that I have not, but I really do wonder if the results are as generalizable as you're making it sound. That sounds like quite a breakthrough that I don't think Ghidra or IDA are slowly approaching. But since it's non-public, I suppose I'll just have to take you at your word. I'll be looking forward to it some day.

mplewis9z 2y ago

I have definitely read some teammates’ code that felt like it would be more readable doing a compiler-decompiler round-trip. Never actually did it, but I doubt it would be less readable than that seemingly intentionally obfuscated garbage.

InDubioProRubio 2y ago
Cant want for the jetbrains "deabstract" plugin, that compiles it, decompiles it and reconstructs a indirection free AST and then cleaner code from that AST via AI. De-Tech-Bro-My-Code. Pull the plug on all-the-patterns in one project devs and get cleaner code today. Refactor> ThrowIt> IntoTheBin

userbinator 2y ago

Personal experience. There is a lot of decompiler research which isn't public. A sibling comment mentions Hex-Rays and Ghidra. Those are only now slowly approaching the capabilities of what I've used. The fact that the majority of code tends to not be intentionally obfuscated and is compiler-generated and thus easily pattern-matched also makes it quite straightforward. Of course the fact that decompilers are often used on code that is (e.g. malware, DRM) skews a lot of people's perceptions.

jchw 2y ago
Just to be completely clear, the conditions I have been using Ghidra/Hex-Rays/BN with were not that bad. I wasn't analyzing malware or heavily-DRM'd software. Even with symbols and full debug info, many of those gripes still apply. (Hex-Rays is able to do a lot more with debug info. It can usually get a lot of the vtable indirections typed correctly, including with a bit of effort, multi-inheritance offset this pointers.) I'd love to see this non-public decompiler research but I have some skepticism, as a lot of the information that is lost would require domain-specific reconstruction to get back to anywhere near full fidelity. I do not deny that you have seen impressive results that I have not, but I really do wonder if the results are as generalizable as you're making it sound. That sounds like quite a breakthrough that I don't think Ghidra or IDA are slowly approaching. But since it's non-public, I suppose I'll just have to take you at your word. I'll be looking forward to it some day.