Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE
- From: "randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Jun 2006 10:03:48 -0700
Betov wrote:
"Dave -Turner" <x@xxx> écrivait news:449aea79$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
Is there much a need for re-assembly these days?...
Yes:
* There is a huge difference in between a disassembler that
can re-assemble, and one that cannot do it, that is that
the first one can be proven right (or wrong) with one click.
Exactly what proof does a "reassembly" provide?
Sure, the result is *syntactically* correct, but it doesn't show that
the result is *semantically* correct. E.g., when I ran my "99 Bottles"
program through your disassembler, it disassembled and reassembled
without complaint. But the insertion of a *single* NOP at the beginning
of the main program broke it (that is, the executable failed to run).
Ergo, your "two click disassembly/reassembly" proves very little about
the quality of the disassembly.
* The very first purpose of RosAsm Disassembler is about porting
C Demos to Assembly. What was consuming, say, one month, before,
can now be done in one or two days.
Almost every C compiler of interest out there has a "-S" (or similar)
option to emit assembly language output. If you've got the C source
code, then producing *correct* assembly language output is a *very
trivial* operation. Also, the assembly output from a C compiler
generally contains things like the original variable names, function
names, and stuff like that. No need to spend hours analyzing the
result to try and make the result readable.
With the RosAsm disassembler approach, you never know if the code you
are producing is semantically correct.
So as a C->assembly conversion process, the RosAsm disassembler is a
*real* loser.
* One of the purpose of a Disassembler is in the educational
area. Learning from a faultive disassembly is not a very
good idea.
These two sentences seem to be at odds with one another. Perhaps you
could explain better?
* Maybe you missed it, but this (one another) attempt of aggression
driven by Master Pdf, is based on a request from a CLAX participant,
and, as long as CLAX is moderated, he cannot post such attacks
against RosAsm, there.
Oh, how persecuted you are. What a hypocrite you are! Complaining
about attacks against RosAsm when you spew nothing but that kind of
nonsense around here.
The question was from a guy wanting to
improve an old app he had developped (maybe a big lie, but well...)
Uh, he specifically claimed it was an abandonware project. I realize
English is not your primary language, but if you're going to call
people liars, you should first make sure you know what they're saying.
... Such case may also exist, that is, you write an App, loose the
Source, and therefore, may be happy if a tool can do such a job,
for which, evidently, nobody (but Master Pdf, of course), would
ever recommand IDA.
Hmmm... I've seen *lots* of people recommend IDA. As for RosAsm, you
and your minions seem to be the only ones.
Cheers,
Randy Hyde
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE
- From: Betov
- Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE
- References:
- Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE
- From: randyhyde@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE
- From: Betov
- Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE
- From: Dave -Turner
- Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE
- From: Betov
- Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE
- Prev by Date: Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE
- Next by Date: Re: Book on Assembly
- Previous by thread: Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE
- Next by thread: Re: .EXE -> .ASM -> .EXE
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
