Author: Arnon Yogev
Date: 12:28:39 01/28/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2006 at 15:08:31, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 28, 2006 at 14:51:12, Sebastian Leibnitz wrote: > >>On January 28, 2006 at 14:37:14, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 28, 2006 at 13:27:25, Arnon Yogev wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Ofcourse it is possible to use dissassemblers to rebuild some of the code from >>>>the .exe file, >>>>but they were talking about _Automatic_ ways to do it. >>>>this is impossible. >>>>on the other points I completely agree with you. >>>> >>>>Arnon. >>> >>>please see the following post: >>> >>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?481685 >>> >>>I understand that it is possible not only to disassemble code but to get >>>directly C code and not assembler code. >> >>That is the difference between a dissasembler and a decompiler. >> >>Decompilers have come a long way, but (Arnon is right there), you dont get an >>automatic full C-source-code. >> >>That said, you do get C code, but is quite mutilated and especially most data >>(prefilled arrays, etc) is difficult to extract. >> >>But, as said in my previous post, it enables you to do several things. >> >>1) check on algorithms >> easy >>2) check on data >> depends, sometimes very easy(constants, hardcoded >>bitboards), sometimes difficult(e.g. piece square tables) >>3) rebuild the program (more or less the same, although the code might look >>fairly different) >> difficult (most likely more than a month for a skilled and >>determined individual) > >I do not understand. > >I understood from the post in the previous link that you can get C code for the >exe file when the only difference is that you have not significant names of >functions and have not significant name of variables. > >If it is not the case then what is the C code that you easily get by the >decompiler? > Uri, if it was possible to do so easily you would see hundreds of clones for whatever programs out there, you would not see competition at all, and you would basiclly make programming uselss. this is simply irrational. I assume it is possible as a project for a very talented programmer to carefully study a program using those methods and successfully understand it, but I doubt everyone can do it. >Note that names of functions and name of variables are clearly not important for >a program that detect clones based on source code and having not significant >names may make it harder for humans to understand the code but it does not make >it harder for a program to detect clones. > >Uri Arnon.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.