Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!news
From: flee@cs.psu.edu (Felix Lee)
Subject: un-ld (Re: Shared libraries)
Message-ID: <mw8G?7e*1@cs.psu.edu>
Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: dictionopolis.cs.psu.edu
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
References: <19239@rpp386.cactus.org> <1991Apr29.031351.3912@decuac.dec.com>
	<kre.673335935@mundamutti.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
	<1991May4.132632.13885@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Sun, 5 May 91 05:52:31 GMT
Lines: 13

>But a module structure which allowed re-editing a binary, and explicitely
>replacing one module in it, would give a much more useful level of control.

Why isn't there an "un-ld"?  Doesn't anyone think it would be useful
to take a linked executable and tear it to pieces?

Or is this a nasty no-no, like disassemblers and decompilers and other
reverse engineering tools?

Or is it just too expensive to have a decomposable a.out format?  (Is
it impossible to decompose current a.out formats?)
--
Felix Lee	flee@cs.psu.edu