Newsgroups: comp.arch Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Universal Disassemblers vs. Univers Message-ID: <1988Nov7.180356.15674@utzoo.uucp> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <28200227@urbsdc> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 88 18:03:56 GMT In article <28200227@urbsdc> aglew@urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM writes: >Do you really think that obfuscating your C will make it terribly >hard to understand your source? After all, people disassemble >their competitors object code and binary every day. In assembler, >at least, flow of control info is hidden - even in obfuscated C >it is not, you still have labels. Uh, assembler has labels too, and a good disassembler will insert them. It's not that hard to sort out flow of control from a binary. Obfuscated C probably won't be as hard to understand as binaries resulting from a heavily-optimizing compiler, but it could come pretty close to equalling assembler-derived binaries, and the industry seems to accept those as an acceptable method of software distribution. (Comparisons should be against realistic alternatives, not hypothetical perfection.) -- The Earth is our mother. | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology Our nine months are up. |uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu