On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 01:52:57PM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote: > >On the flip side, the transformation from the source to the binary for > >programs is not one-way. You can turn that binary back into source - look > >at dozens of Java disassemblers, and the theory is the same for any > >source->binary language. > > No. It is essentially one-way. At least for the PDP11, x80, > x86, 68xxx. In many cases you can't even monosemantic disassemble > the binary. As for more abstract languages....to _which_ language > (or dialect of language) you going to decompile the binary? This is nonsense. I'm getting really tired of saying that about your posts. The number of architectures where the meaning of assembly is not clearly determined until runtime is vanishingly small. The number of Debian architectures on which one cannot reliably disassemble the output of GNU as is zero. I've been playing with decompilers for x86 and 68k processors for years. There isn't currently a worthwhile one for gcc, but that's mostly because nobody cares enough to write one. For abstract languages: the one in which you wrote it, duh. Yes, this is inaccurate. You have precisely the same problem with documentation. You cannot take a printed page and accurately reproduce the latex which generated it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgpgdUvabkvgI.pgp
Description: PGP signature