Basic code to ASM or De-ASM is integral to any compiler that understands it's own hardware architecture, things like Java based programming or higher end languages are exempt of course.

__________________

 

While I'm aware of quite a number of third-party decompilers, I'm not familiar with any common compilers which come with an asm-to-<insert original language here> decompiler, although most of the compilers I've used do produce (or can be configured to produce) assembler output as an interim step in the compilation process.

Disassemblers are a different topic and of course are required for use in interactive debuggers. They generally do not produce code in the original high-level language, though.


Torben

__________________
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.

 

Well said and quite lawyerly at that. I agree, it would be the claimant that has the burden of proof...

__________________
Forget injuries, never forget kindnesses.

 

I don't require anyone to defend my statement. There are decompilers around that is in evidence from other posters and Google and In some of the original C++ releases a decompiler came with it. I have no knowledge of more recent versions so cannot comment further.

Larry

__________________
Confucius says: "One in three is a teacher."

 

Next some wiseacre will inform us that those "C copilers" will actually copula....
ooops family values and such.

I never saw a de-compiler.
I never hope to see one,
but, I can tell you anyhow,
I'd rather see than be one!

Ahhh..cha..cha..cha

__________________
We never have time to do it right; but we always have time to do it over.

 

There is a good article in "The Firmware Handbook" (Jack Gansel ed. Newnes 2004) called "Understanding Your C Compiler," written by Jakob Engblom (IAR compiler developer) which points out the steps a compiler takes to make a machine executable. If you read that, you will begin to understand why a 'decompiler' is not practical.

 

Hi BeeBop,

Not sure who you're talking to here, but decompilers are indeed practical and there are lots of them out there.

Now, a decompiler which produces readable output and scales well--that's another question entirely. And a round-trip decompiler (where you actually get back the original source code) would be like unburning paper unless special provisions were made to support it in the original compiler.


Torben

__________________
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.

 

It was only my 2 cents added to the thread. So what you are saying is that an unreadable output it practical?

I remember trying out a 'decompiler,' some time back. I found it much easier to take the hex file, line by line, and disassemble it manually.

 

For various values of "practical".

Yeah, that's pretty much been my experience too--although I've done more with disassemblers than decompilers. Disassemblers have the advantage of actually being useful.


Torben

__________________
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.