* D. Starner (shalesller@writeme.com) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > > It's not like there's a whole lot of difference between the assembly and > > the binary in this case. Write a Q&D disassembler and extract the > > assembly if you want. > > Even if we were talking about x86 assembly, there would still be a lot > of difference between assembly with mnemonic constants and labels > and comments, and assembly from a disassembled binary. But some of > these chips are poorly documented or undocumented; if we don't know > the instruction length, much less the opcodes, writing a disassembler > could be a serious act of reverse engineering. Of course it could. Writing an assembler would probably take some serious effort too without knowing that information. To some extent that's my point- are we going to require hardware specifications for anything that uses firmware? Personally I don't think we need to, or should. If we don't have the hardware specifications though, there's really not much use to having the assembly for the firmware that runs on that hardware. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature