I have the compiled C code in text format. I need to extract the source code by decompiling the machine code. How to do that?
"True" decompiling is, basically, impossible. Foremost, you can't "decompile" local names (in functions and source code files / modules). For those, you'll get something like, for int local variables: i1, i2... Of course, unless you also have debug information, which is not often the case.
Decompiling to "something" (which might not be very readable) is possible, but it usually relies on some heuristics, recognizing code patterns that compilers generate and can be fooled into generating strange (possibly even incorrect) C code. In practice that means that a decompiler usually works OK for a certain compiler with certain (default) compile options, but, not so nice with others.
Having said that, decompilers do exist and you can try your luck with, say Snowman
As Srdjan has said, in general decompilation of a C (or C++) program is not possible. There is too much information lost during the compilation process. For example consider a declaration such as int x this is 'lost' as it does not directly produce any machine level instruction. The compiler needs this information to do type checking only.
Now, however it is possible to disassembly which is taking the compiled executable back up a level to assembly language. However, interpretation of the assembly might (will ?) be difficult and certainly time consuming. There are several disassemblers available, if you have money IDA-Pro is probably the industry standard in disassemblers, and if you are doing this type work, well worth the several thousand dollars per license. There are a number of open source disassemblers available, google can find them.
Now, that being said there have been efforts to create a decompilers, IDA-Pro has one, and you can look at http://boomerang.sourceforge.net/ in addition to Snowman linked above.
Lastly, other languages are more friendly towards decompilation then C or C++. For example a C# programs is decompilable with tools like dotPeek or ilSpy. Similarly with Java there are a number of tools that can convert Java bytecode back into Java source.
Please post a sample of the "compiled C code in text format."
Perhaps then it will be easier to see what you are trying to achieve.
Typically it is not practical to reverse engineer assembly language into C because much the human readable information in the form of Labels and variable names is permanently lost in the compilation process.
Hullo,
When one disasembly some win32 exe prog compiled by c compiler it
shows that some compilers links some 'hidden' routines in it -
i think even if c program is an empty one and has a 5 bytes or so.
I understand that such 5 bytes is enveloped in PE .exe format but
why to put some routines - it seem not necessary for me and even
somewhat annoys me. What is that? Can it be omitted? As i understand
c program (not speaking about c++ right now which i know has some
initial routines) should not need such complementary hidden functions..
Much tnx for answer, maybe even some extended info link, cause this
topic interests me much
//edit
ok here it is some disasembly Ive done way back then
(digital mars and old borland commandline (i have tested also)
both make much more code, (and Im specialli interested in bcc32)
but they do not include readable names/symbols in such dissassembly
so i will not post them here
thesse are somewhat readable - but i am not experienced in understending
what it is ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/42887985/prog_devcpp.htm
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/42887985/prog_lcc.htm
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/42887985/prog_mingw.htm
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/42887985/prog_pelles.htm
some explanatory comments whats that heere?
(I am afraid maybe there is some c++ sh*t here, I am
interested in pure c addons not c++ though,
but too tired now to assure that it was compiled in c
mode, extension of compiled empty-main prog was c
so I was thinking it will be output in c not c++)
tnx for longer explanations what it is
Since your win32 exe file is a dynamically linked object file, it will contain the necessary data needed by the dynamic linker to do its job, such as names of libraries to link to, and symbols that need resolving.
Even a program with an empty main() will link with the c-runtime and kernel32.dll libraries (and probably others? - a while since I last did Win32 dev).
You should also be aware that main() is only the entry point of your program - quite a bit has already gone on before this point such as retrieving and tokening the command-line, setting up the locale, creating stderr, stdin, and stdout and setting up the other mechanism required by the c-runtime library such a at_exit(). Similarly, when your main() returns, the runtime does some clean-up - and at the very least needs to call the kernel to tell it that you're done.
As to whether it's necessary? Yes, unless you fancy writing your own program prologue and epilogue each time. There are probably are ways of writing minimal, statically linked applications if you're sufficiently masochistic.
As for storage overhead, why are you getting so worked up? It's not enough to worry about.
There are several initialization functions that load whenever you run a program on Windows. These functions, among other things, call the main() function that you write - which is why you need either a main() or WinMain() function for your program to run. I'm not aware of other included functions though. Do you have some disassembly to show?
You don't have much detail to go on but I think most of what you're seeing is probably the routines of the specific C runtime library that your compiler works with.
For instance there will be code enabling it to run from the entry point 'main' which portable executable format understands to call the main(char ** args) that you wrote in your C program.
I want to know how to write a text editor in assembler. But modern operating systems require C libraries, particularly for their windowing systems. I found this page, which has helped me a lot.
But I wonder if there are details I should know. I know enough assembler to write programs that will use windows in Linux using GTK+, but I want to be able to understand what I have to send to a function for it to be a valid input, so that it will be easier to make use of all C libraries. For interfacing between C and x86 assembler, I know what can be learned from this page, and little else.
One of the most instructive ways to learn how to call C from assembler is to:
Write a C program that calls the C function of interest
Compile it, and look at the assembly listing (gcc -S)
This approach makes it easy to experiment by starting with something that is already known to work. You can change the C source and see how the generated code changes, and you can start with the generated code and modify it yourself.
push parameter on the stack
call the function
clear the stack
The links you have in your question show all these steps.
The OS may define the calling standard (it pretty well must define the standard for invoking system calls), in which case you need only find where that is documents and read it closely.
I've heard that there are some things one cannot do as a computer programmer, but I don't know what they are. One thing that occurred to me recently was: wouldn't it be nice to have a class that could make a copy of the source of the program it runs, modify that program and add a method to the class that it is, and then run the copy of the program and terminate itself. Is it possible for code to write code?
If you want to learn about the limits of computability, read about the halting problem
In computability theory, the halting
problem is a decision problem which
can be stated as follows: given a
description of a program and a finite
input, decide whether the program
finishes running or will run forever,
given that input.
Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a
general algorithm to solve the halting problem for all
possible program-input pairs cannot exist
Start by looking at quines, then at Macro-Assemblers and then lex & yacc, and flex & bison. Then consider self-modifying code.
Here's a quine (formatted, use the output as the new input):
#include<stdio.h>
main()
{
char *a = "main(){char *a = %c%s%c; int b = '%c'; printf(a,b,a,b,b);}";
int b = '"';
printf(a,b,a,b,b);
}
Now if you're just looking for things programmers can't do look for the opposite of np-complete.
Sure it is. That's how a lot of viruses work!
Get your head around this: computability theory.
Yes, that's what most Lisp macros do (for just one example).
Yes it certainly is, though maybe not in the context you are referring to check out this post on t4.
If you look at Functional Programming that has many opportunities to write code that generates further code, the way that a language like Lisp doesn't differentiate between code and data is a significant part of it's power.
Rails generates the various default model and controller classes from the database schema when it's creating a new application. It's quite standard to do this kind of thing with dynamic languages- I have a few bits of PHP around that generate php files, just because it was the simplest solution to the problem I was dealing with at the time.
So it is possible. As for the question you are asking, though- that is perhaps a little vague- what environment and language are you using? What do you expect the code to do and why does it need to be added to? A concrete example may bring more directly relevant responses.
Yes it is possible to create code generators.
Most of the time they take user input and produce valid code. But there are other possibilities.
Self modifying programes are also possible. But they were more common in the dos era.
Of course you can! In fact, if you use a dynamic language, the class can change itself (or another class) while the program is still running. It can even create new classes that didn't exist before. This is called metaprogramming, and it lets your code become very flexible.
You are confusing/conflating two meanings of the word "write". One meaning is the physical writing of bytes to a medium, and the other is designing software. Of course you can have the program do the former, if it was designed to do so.
The only way for a program to do something that the programmer did not explicitly intend it to do, is to behave like a living creature: mutate (incorporate in itself bits of environment), and replicate different mutants at different rates (to avoid complete extinction, if a mutation is terminal).
Sure it is. I wrote an effect for Paint.NET* that gives you an editor and allows you to write a graphical effect "on the fly". When you pause typing it compiles it to a dll, loads it and executes it. Now, in the editor, you only need to write the actual render function, everything else necessary to create a dll is written by the editor and sent to the C# compiler.
You can download it free here: http://www.boltbait.com/pdn/codelab/
In fact, there is even an option to see all the code that was written for you before it is sent to the compiler. The help file (linked above) talks all about it.
The source code is available to download from that page as well.
*Paint.NET is a free image editor that you can download here: http://getpaint.net
In relation to artificial intelligence, take a look at Evolutionary algorithms.
make a copy of the source of the program it runs, modify that program and add a method to the class that it is, and then run the copy of the program and terminate itself
You can also generate code, build it into a library instead of an executable, and then dynamically load the library without even exiting the program that is currently running.
Dynamic languages usually don't work quite as you suggest, in that they don't have a completely separate compilation step. It isn't necessary for a program to modify its own source code, recompile, and start from scratch. Typically the new functionality is compiled and linked in on the fly.
Common Lisp is a very good language to practice this in, but there are others where you can created code and run it then and there. Typically, this will be through a function called "eval" or something similar. Perl has an "eval" function, and it's generally common for scripting languages to have the ability.
There are a lot of programs that write other programs, such as yacc or bison, but they don't have the same dynamic quality you seem to be looking for.
Take a look at Langtom's loop. This is the simplest example of self-reproducing "program".
There is a whole class of such things called "Code Generators". (Although, a compiler also fits the description as you set it). And those describe the two areas of these beasts.
Most code generates, take some form of user input (most take a Database schema) and product source code which is then compiled.
More advanced ones can output executable code. With .NET, there's a whole namespace (System.CodeDom) dedicated to the create of executable code. The these objects, you can take C# (or another language) code, compile it, and link it into your currently running program.
I do this in PHP.
To persist settings for a class, I keep a local variable called $data. $data is just a dictionary/hashtable/assoc-array (depending on where you come from).
When you load the class, it includes a php file which basically defines data. When I save the class, it writes the PHP out for each value of data. It's a slow write process (and there are currently some concurrency issues) but it's faster than light to read. So much faster (and lighter) than using a database.
Something like this wouldn't work for all languages. It works for me in PHP because PHP is very much on-the-fly.
It has always been possible to write code generators. With XML technology, the use of code generators can be an essential tool. Suppose you work for a company that has to deal with XML files from other companies. It is relatively straightforward to write a program that uses the XML parser to parse the new XML file and write another program that has all the callback functions set up to read XML files of that format. You would still have to edit the new program to make it specific to your needs, but the development time when a new XML file (new structure, new names) is cut down a lot by using this type of code generator. In my opinion, this is part of the strength of XML technology.
Lisp lisp lisp lisp :p
Joking, if you want code that generates code to run and you got time to loose learning it and breaking your mind with recursive stuff generating more code, try to learn lisp :)
(eval '(or true false))
wouldn't it be nice to have a class that could make a copy of the source of the program it runs, modify that program and add a method to the class that it is, and then run the copy of the program and terminate itself
There are almost no cases where that would solve a problem that cannot be solved "better" using non-self-modifying code..
That said, there are some very common (useful) cases of code writing other code.. The most obvious being any server-side web-application, which generates HTML/Javascript (well, HTML is markup, but it's identical in theory). Also any script that alters a terminals environment usually outputs a shell script that is eval'd by the parent shell. wxGlade generates code to that creates bare-bone wx-based GUIs.
See our DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit. This is general purpose machinery to read and modify programs, or generate programs by assembling fragments.
This is one of the fundamental questions of Artificial Intelligence. Personally I hope it is not possible - otherwise soon I'll be out of a job!!! :)
It is called meta-programming and is both a nice way of writing useful programs, and an interesting research topic. Jacques Pitrat's Artificial Beings: the conscience of a conscious machine book should interest you a lot. It is mostly related to meta-knowledge based computer programs.
Another related term is multi-staged programming (because there are several stages of programs, each generating the next one).