newbie question: foo.exe ->foo.c ?? 
Author Message
 newbie question: foo.exe ->foo.c ??

Is it possible to un-compile a program back to source code?
thanks.
victor alderman


Fri, 11 May 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 newbie question: foo.exe ->foo.c ??


Quote:
> Is it possible to un-compile a program back to source code?
> thanks.
> victor alderman

<Jack>

It is possible to un-compile a hamburger back into a cow?

</Jack>



Fri, 11 May 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 newbie question: foo.exe ->foo.c ??

Quote:

> Is it possible to un-compile a program back to source code?

Hi victor alderman,

No, not really. It's called decompilation and it is a very
controversial subject. In *very* very rare cases decompilation
has been aproached with moderate success, but the resulting code
typically does not resemble the original C code very much. Think
about it: the decompiler has to be written specifically for the
compiler that was used, it must know about things like which runtime
libraries were used and which compiler options were set. And even then
there will be lots of ambigious assembler code sequences, ie. assembler
code that can be translated into several different C code statements.

So for a very few compilers you might find a decompiler, but it will
tend to produces C code that looks very strange and not resemble the
original code very closely (or not at all).

Stephan
(initiator of the campaign against grumpiness in c.l.c)



Fri, 11 May 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 newbie question: foo.exe ->foo.c ??

Well... yes kinda its call de-compiling and is .. well kinda of wrong
(programmers don't like giving away there source code)

i found a good de-compiler..... wait! no! did I say i found a good
de-compiler....
i meant a friend of mine found it!

Who are you! no wait! let go!! *Trev falls into a deep sleep! never to
awakin*

Trev++



Fri, 11 May 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 newbie question: foo.exe ->foo.c ??


Quote:


>> Is it possible to un-compile a program back to source code?
>> thanks.
>> victor alderman

><Jack>

>It is possible to un-compile a hamburger back into a cow?

></Jack>

Always found that anology a bit odd. Whenever I do a compilation, the
source code remains. Tends to make the edit-compile-debug cycle go
quicker :)

---
Tristan Styles

Failure is not an Option
It is Standard Operating Procedure



Fri, 11 May 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 newbie question: foo.exe ->foo.c ??


Quote:

>> Is it possible to un-compile a program back to source
code?

>Hi victor alderman,

>No, not really. It's called decompilation and it is a very
>controversial subject. In *very* very rare cases
decompilation
>has been aproached with moderate success, but the resulting
code
>typically does not resemble the original C code very much.
Think
>about it: the decompiler has to be written specifically for
the
>compiler that was used, it must know about things like which
runtime
>libraries were used and which compiler options were set. And
even then
>there will be lots of ambigious assembler code sequences,
ie. assembler
>code that can be translated into several different C code
statements.

>So for a very few compilers you might find a decompiler, but
it will
>tend to produces C code that looks very strange and not
resemble the
>original code very closely (or not at all).

>Stephan
>(initiator of the campaign against grumpiness in c.l.c)

 Well that was certainly an education as to the responses.  I
still favor Mr. Stephan Wilms answer & handle
(initiator.....grumpiness in c.l.c) :-)

Thanks for all replys,
Victor



Fri, 11 May 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 newbie question: foo.exe ->foo.c ??
On Mon, 23 Nov 1998 21:46:38 +0000, Tristan Styles

Quote:





> >> Is it possible to un-compile a program back to source code?
> >> thanks.
> >> victor alderman

> ><Jack>

> >It is possible to un-compile a hamburger back into a cow?

> ></Jack>

> Always found that anology a bit odd. Whenever I do a compilation, the
> source code remains. Tends to make the edit-compile-debug cycle go
> quicker :)

> ---
> Tristan Styles

> Failure is not an Option
> It is Standard Operating Procedure

<Jack>

Yes I know.  It is an exaggeration, not to mention moderately bad manners to
answer a question with a question.

So let me ask you this, instead:

Is it possible to look at a hamburger and get the cow's name?

:)

I find your response to my analogy odd as well, however.  If you have the
source code you don't NEED a decompiler, do you???

</Jack>



Sat, 12 May 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 newbie question: foo.exe ->foo.c ??
No.  or so unlikely as to be impossible,   You can un assemble machine
code into assembly,  with no comments or groupings, so to figure out
what that is doing is very hard.  Kind of like built in security.
Quote:

> Is it possible to un-compile a program back to source code?
> thanks.
> victor alderman



Sat, 12 May 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 newbie question: foo.exe ->foo.c ??

Quote:





> >> Is it possible to un-compile a program back to source code?
> >> thanks.
> >> victor alderman

> ><Jack>

> >It is possible to un-compile a hamburger back into a cow?

> ></Jack>

> Always found that anology a bit odd. Whenever I do a compilation, the
> source code remains. Tends to make the edit-compile-debug cycle go
> quicker :)

Why the hell would you want a decompiler if you had the original
source???? :)

--
 { Sunil Rao }
"There is no scorn more profound, or on the whole more justifiable,
 than that of the men who make for the men who explain."
                                          -- HARDY, Godfrey Harold.



Sat, 12 May 2001 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 9 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. makefile question - foo.c := DUMMY=foo

2. sizeof(foo) -1 or sizeof(foo)

3. difference between void foo(void) and void foo()

4. extern char *foo vs. extern char foo[]

5. How About #define foo foo

6. (foo == (foo_t *)NULL) vs. ((void *)foo == NULL)

7. ostream_iterator<Foo *>() bug?

8. Newbie -- foo.c in VC++ 6.0

9. Newbie -- foo.c in VC++ 6.0

10. #include "foo" vs #include <foo>

11. #include "foo" vs #include <foo>

12. Question: what is the _FOO_ convention all about?

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software