Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!snorkelwacker!husc6!spdcc!ima!esegue!compilers-sender From: pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Help on disassembler/decompilers Keywords: code, assembler, debug Message-ID: <12976@june.cs.washington.edu> Date: 7 Sep 90 16:41:49 GMT References: Sender: compilers-sender@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us Reply-To: pardo@cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) Organization: University of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle Lines: 18 Approved: compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us >[Turning object code back into assembler is pretty straightforward, and >every debugger does it. Someone else asked about disassembling into higher >level languages a little while ago, but I didn't see any responses. -John] See anonymous ftp from cs.washington.edu (128.95.1.4) `pub/decomp.tar.Z'. It takes VAX object code back to fake C. One of my profs did a one-day hack a while back to decompile assembly code in to compiler IR. From that, he could have created source code in several languages. My guess is that decompiling in to a language that is e.g., saccarine-sweetened assembler (C) is `easy', while decompiling e.g., in to APL is hard. ;-D on ( Now for a deprogrammer... ) Pardo -- pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo -- Send compilers articles to compilers@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us {ima | spdcc | world}!esegue. Meta-mail to compilers-request@esegue.