4 ms·
I don't think the market for this is to get the actual original code. It's more like understanding what a particular program does: when you see it on a higher l
by anemic 12y ago
I don't think the market for this is to get the actual original code. It's more like understanding what a particular program does: when you see it on a higher level it's much easier to understand the code than reading raw assembly.
- TickleSteve 12y agoAbsolutely... I get that, but its only functional for non-optimised code. My point is that for anything non-trivial, its not going to be terribly useful. You're still gonna need to understand what really is going on, optimisers mangle the code out of all recognisability for this decompiler.
- pjmlp 12y agoUnless the Assembly is using clever tricks like code rewriting, it is always possible to at very least decompile into some form of pseudo-code. Just the fact of giving symbolic names to memory addresses and replacing Assembly opcodes by more meaningful instructions can make wonders trying to understand some code.
- TickleSteve 12y agoI disagree... inlining will remove all evidence that a function call existed. loop unrolling will remove all evidence that a loop existed (potentially). Those are basic optimisations, comiplers will transform the code out of all recognisability for a decompiler to be worthwhile.