This question already has answers here:
Building an assembler
(4 answers)
How Do You Make An Assembler? [closed]
(4 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I've recently been trying to immerse myself in the world of assembly programming with the eventual goal of creating my own programming language. I want my first real project to be a simple assembler written in C that will be able to assemble a very small portion of the x86 machine language and create a Windows executable. No macros, no linkers. Just assembly.
On paper, it seems simple enough. Assembly code comes in, machine code comes out.
But as soon as I thinking about all the details, it suddenly becomes very daunting. What conventions does the operating system demand? How do I align data and calculate jumps? What does the inside of an executable even look like?
I'm feeling lost. There aren't any tutorials on this that I could find and looking at the source code of popular assemblers was not inspiring (I'm willing to try again, though).
Where do I go from here? How would you have done it? Are there any good tutorials or literature on this topic?
I have written a few myself (assemblers and disassemblers) and I would not start with x86. If you know x86 or any other instruction set you can pick up and learn the syntax for another instruction set in short order (an evening/afternoon), at least the lions share of it. The act of writing an assembler (or disassembler) will definitely teach you an instruction set, fast, and you will know that instruction set better than many seasoned assembly programmers for that instruction set who have not examined the microcode at that level. msp430, pdp11, and thumb (not thumb2 extensions) (or mips or openrisc) are all good places to start, not a lot of instructions, not overly complicated, etc.
I recommend a disassembler first, and with that a fixed length instruction set like arm or thumb or mips or openrisc, etc. If not then at least use a disassembler (definitely choose an instruction set for which you already have an assembler, linker, and disassembler) and with pencil and paper understand the relationship between the machine code and the assembly, in particular the branches, they usually have one or more quirks like the program counter is an instruction or two ahead when the offset is added, to gain another bit they sometimes measure in whole instructions not bytes.
It is pretty easy to brute force parse the text with a C program to read the instructions. A harder task but perhaps as educational, would be to use bison/flex and learn that programming language to allow those tools to create (an even more extreme brute force) parser which then interfaces to your code to tell you what was found where.
The assembler itself is pretty straight forward, just read the ascii and set the bits in the machine code. Branches and other pc relative instructions are a little more painful as they can take multiple passes through the source/tables to completely resolve.
mov r0,r1
mov r2 ,#1
the assembler begins parsing the text for a line (being defined as the bytes that follow a carriage return 0xD or line feed 0xA), discard the white space (spaces and tabs) until you get to something non white space, then strncmp that with the known mnemonics. if you hit one then parse the possible combinations of that instruction, in the simple case above after the mov skip over the white space to non-white space, perhaps the first thing you find must be a register, then optional white space, then a comma. remove the whitespace and comma and compare that against a table of strings or just parse through it. Once that register is done then go past where the comma is found and lets say it is either another register or an immediate. If immediate lets say it has to have a # sign, if register lets say it has to start with a lower or upper case 'r'. after parsing that register or immediate, then make sure there is nothing else on the line that shouldnt be on the line. build the machine code for this instruciton or at least as much as you can, and move on to the next line. It may be tedious but it is not difficult to parse ascii...
at a minimum you will want a table/array that accumulates the machine code/data as it is created, plus some method for marking instructions as being incomplete, the pc-relative instructions to be completed on a future pass. you will also want a table/array that collects the labels you find and the address/offset in the machine code table where found. As well as the labels used in the instruction as a destination/source and the offset in the table/array holding the partially complete instruction they go with. after the first pass, then go back through these tables until you have matched up all the label definitions with the labels used as a source or destination, using the label definition address/offset to compute the distance to the instruction in question and then finish creating the machine code for that instruction. (some disassembly may be required and/or use some other method for remembering what kind of encoding it was when you come back to it later to finish building the machine code).
The next step is allowing for multiple source files, if that is something you want to allow. Now you have to have labels that dont get resolved by the assembler so you have to leave placeholders in the output and make some flavor of the longest jump/branch instruction because you dont know how far away the destination will be, expect the worse. Then there is the output file format you choose to create/use, then there is the linker which is mostly simple, but you have to remember to fill in the machine code for the final pc relative instructions, no harder than it was in the assembler itself.
Note, writing an assembler is not necessarily related to creating a programming language and then writing a compiler for it, separate thing, different problems. Actually if you want to make a new programming language just use an existing assembler for an existing instruction set. Not required of course, but most teachings and tutorials are going to use the bison/flex approach for programming languages, and there are many college course lecture notes/resources out there for beginning compiler classes that you can just use to get you started then modify the script to add the features of your language. The middle and back ends are the bigger challenge than the front end. there are many books on this topic and many online resources as well. As mentioned in another answer llvm is not a bad place to create a new programming language the middle and backends are done for you, you only need to focus on the programming language itself, the front end.
You should look at LLVM, llvm is a modular compiler back end, the most popular front end is Clang for compiling C/C++/Objective-C. The good thing about LLVM is that you can pick the part of the compiler chain that you are interested in and just focus on that, ignoring all of the others. You want to create your own language, write a parser that generates the LLVM internal representation code, and for free you get all of the middle layer target independent optimisations and compiling to many different targets. Interesting in a compiler for some exotic CPU, write a compiler backend that takes the LLVM intermediated code and generates your assemble. Have some ideas about optimisation technics, automatic threading perhaps, write a middle layer which processes LLVM intermediate code. LLVM is a collection of libraries not a standalone binary like GCC, and so it is very easy to use in you own projects.
What you're looking for is not a tutorial or source code, it's a specification. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/gg463119.aspx
Once you understand the specification of an executable, write a program to generate one. The executable you build should be as simple as possible. Once you have mastered that, then you can write a simple line-oriented parser that reads instruction names and numeric arguments to generate a block of code to plug into the exe. Later you can add symbols, branches, sections, whatever you want, and that's where something like http://www.davidsalomon.name/assem.advertis/asl.pdf will come in.
P.S. Carl Norum has a good point in the comment above. If your goal is create your own programming language, learning to write an assembler is irrelevant and is very much not the right way to start (unless the language you want to create is an assembly language). There are already assemblers that produce executables from assembler source, so your compiler could produce assembler source and you could avoid the work of recreating the assembler ... and you should. Or you could use something like LLVM, which will solve many other daunting problems of compiler construction. The odds are very small that you will ever actually produce your own programming language, but they're much smaller if you start from scratch and there's no need to. Decide what your goal is and use the best tools available to achieve it.
Related
Im a mid-level(abstraction) programmer, and some months ago i started to think if i should reduce or increase abstraction(i've chosen to reduce).
Now, i think i've done most of the "research" about what i need, but still are a few questions remaining.
Right now while im "doing effectively nothing", im just reinforcing my C skills (bought "K&R C Programing Lang"), and im thinking to (after feel comfortable) start studying operating systems(like minix) just for learning purposes, but i have an idea stuck in my mind, and i don't really know if i should care.
In theory(i think, not sure), the higher level languages cannot refer to the hardware directly (like registers, memory locations, etc...) so the "perfect language" for the base would be assembly.
I already studied assembly(some time ago) just to see how it was (and i stopped in the middle of the book due to the outdated debugger that the book used(Assembly Language Step By Step, for Linux!)) but from what i have read, i din't liked the language a lot.
So the question is simple: Can an operating system(bootloader/kernel) be programmed without touching in a single line of assembly, and still be effective?
Even if it can, it will not be "cross-architecture", will it? (i386/arm/mips etc...)
Thanks for your support
You can do a significant amount of the work without assembly. Linux or NetBSD doesnt have to be completely re-written or patched for each of the many targets it runs on. Most of the code is portable and then there are abstraction layers and below the abstraction layer you find a target specific layer. Even within the target specific layers most of the code is not asm. I want to dispell this mistaken idea that in order to program registers or memory for a device driver for example that you need asm, you do not use asm for such things. You use asm for 1) instructions that a processor has that you cannot produce using a high level language. or 2) where high level language generated code is too slow.
For example in the ARM to enable or disable interrupts there is a specific instruction for accessing the processor state registers that you must use, so asm is required. but programming the interrupt controller is all done in the high level language. An example of the second point is you often find in C libraries that memcpy and other similar heavily used library functions are hand coded asm because it is dramatically faster.
Although you certainly CAN write and do anything you want in ASM, but you typically find that a high level language is used to access the "hardware directly (like registers, memory locations, etc...)". You should continue to re-inforce your C skills not just with the K&R book but also wander through the various C standards, you might find it disturbing how many "implementation defined" items there are, like bitfields, how variable sizes are promoted, etc. Just because a program you wrote 10 years ago keeps compiling and working using a/one specific brand of compiler (msvc, gcc, etc) doesnt mean the code is clean and portable and will keep working. Unfortunately gcc has taught many very bad programming habits that shock the user when the find out they didnt know the language a decade or so down the road and have to redo how they solve problems using that language.
You have answered your question yourself in "the higher level languages cannot refer to the hardware directly".
Whether you want it or not, at some point you will have to deal with assembly/machine code if you want to make an OS.
Interrupt and exception handlers will have to have some assembly code in them. So will need the scheduler (if not directly, indirectly). And the system call mechanism. And the bootloader.
What I've learned in the past reading websites and books is that:
a) many programmers dislikes assembly language because of the reasons we all know.
b) the main programming language for OS's seems to be C and even C++
c) assembly language can be used to 'speed up code' after profiling your source code in C or C++ (language doesn't matter in fact)
So, the combination of a mid level language and a low level language is in some cases inevitable. For example there is no use to speed up code for waiting on user input.
If it matters to build the shortest and fastest code for one specific range of computers (AMD, INTEL, ARM, DIGITAL-ALPHA, ...) then you should use assembler. My opinion...
I want to decompile a DLL that I believe was written in C. How can I do this?
Short answer: you can't.
Long answer: The compilation process for C/C++ is very lossy. The compiler makes a whole lot of high and low level optimizations to your code, and the resulting assembly code more often than not resembles nothing of your original code. Furthermore there are different compilers in the market (and each has several different active versions), which each generate the output a little differently. Without knowledge of which compiler was used the task of decompiling becomes even more hopeless. At the best I've heard of some tools that can give you some partial decompilation, with bits of C code recognized here and there, but you're still going to have to read through a lot of assembly code to make sense of it.
That's by the way one of the reasons why copy protections on software are difficult to crack and require special assembly skills.
It is possible, but extremely difficult and will take ginormous amount of time even if you're pretty well versed in C, assembly and the intricacies of the operating system where this code is supposed to work.
The problem is, optimization makes compiled code hardly recognizable/understandable for humans.
Further, there will be ambiguities if the disassembler loses information (e.g. the same instruction can be encoded in different ways and if the rest of the code depends on a particular encoding which many disassemblers (or their users) fail to take into account, the resultant disassembly becomes incomplete or incorrect).
Self-modifying code complicates the matters as well.
See in this question more on the topic and available tools.
You can, but only up to a certain extent:
Optimizations could change the code
Symbols might have been stripped (DLL allows to refer to functions residing inside via index instead of symbol)
Some instruction combinations might not be convertible to C
and some other things I might forget...
Have a client that's claiming complied C is harder to reverse engineer than sudo "compiled" Perl byte-code, or the like. Anyone have a way to prove, or disprove this?
I don't know too much about perl, but I'll give some examples why reversing code compiled to assembly is so ugly.
The ugliest thing about reverse engineering c code is that the compilation removes all type information. This total lack of names and types is very the worst part IMO.
In a dynamically typed language the compiler needs to preserve much more information about that. In particular the names of fields/methods/... since these are usually strings for which it is impossible to find every use.
There is plenty of other ugly stuff. Such as whole program optimization using different registers to pass parameters every time. Functions being inlined so what was one a simple function appears in many places, often in slightly different form due to optimizations.
The same registers and bytes on the stack get reused by different content inside a function. Gets especially ugly with arrays on the stack. Since you have no way to know how big the array is and where it ends.
Then there are micro-optimizations which can get annoying. For example I once spend >15 minutes to reverse a simple function that once was similar to return x/1600. Because the compiler decided that divisions are slow and rewrote that division by a constant into several multiplications additions and bitwise-operations.
Perl is really easy to reverse engineer. The tool of choice is vi, vim, emacs or notepad.
That does raise the question about why they're worried about reverse engineering. It is more difficult to turn machine code back to something resembling the original source code than it is byte-code normally but for most nefarious activities that's irrelevant. If someone wants to copy your secrets or break your security they can do enough without turning it back into a perfect representation of your original source code.
Reverse engineering code for a virtual machine is usually easier. A virtual machine is typically designed to be an easy target for the language. That means it typically represents the constructs of that language reasonably easily and directly.
If, however, you're dealing with a VM that wasn't designed for that particular language (e.g., Perl compiled to the JVM) that would frequently put you back much closer to working with code generated for real hardware -- i.e., you have to do whatever's necessary to target a pre-defined architecture instead of designing the target to fit the source.
Ok, there has been suficient debate on this over the years; and mostly the results are never conclusive ... mainly because it doesn't matter.
For a motivated reverse engineer, both will be the same.
If you are using pseudo exe makers like perl2exe then that will be easier to "decompile" than compiled C, as perl2exe does not compile the perl at all, it's just a bit "hidden" (see http://www.net-security.org/vuln.php?id=2464 ; this is really old, but concept is probably still the same (I haven't researched so don't know for sure, but I hope you get my point) )
I would advise look at the language which is best for the job so maintenance and development of the actual product can be done sensibly and sustainably.
Remember you _can_not_ stop a motivated adversary, you need to make it more expensive to reverse than to write it themselves.
These 4 should make it difficult (but again not impossible)...
[1] Insert noise code (random places, random code) which does pointless maths and complex data structure interaction (if done properly this will be a great headache if the purpose is to reverse the code rather than the functionality).
[2] Chain a few (different) code obfuscators on the source code as part of build process.
[3] Apply a Software protection dongle which will prevent code execution if the h/w is not present, this will mean physical access to the dongle's data is required before rest of the reversing can take place : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_protection_dongle
[4] There are always protectors (e.g. Themida http://www.oreans.com/themida.php) you can get which will be able to protect a .exe after it has been built (regardless of how it was compiled).
... That should give the reverser enough headache.
But remember that all this will also cost money, so you should always weigh up what is it that you are trying to achieve and then look at your options.
In short: Both methods are equally insecure. Unless you are using a non-compiling perl-to-exe maker in which case native compiled EXE wins.
I hope this helps.
C is harder to decompile than byte-compiled Perl code. Any Perl code that's been byte-compiled can be decompiled. Byte-compiled code is not machine code like in compiled C programs. Some others suggested using code obfuscation techniques. Those are just tricks to make code harder to read and won't effect the difficulty in decompiling the Perl source. The decompiled source may be harder to read but there are many Perl de-obfuscation tools available and even a Perl module:
http://metacpan.org/pod/B::Deobfuscate
Perl packing programs like Par, PerlAPP or Perl2exe won't offer source code protection either. At some point the source has to be extracted so Perl can execute the script. Even packers like PerlAPP and Perl2exe, which attempt some encryption techniques on the source, can be defeated with a debugger:
http://www.perlmonks.org/?displaytype=print;node_id=779752;replies=1
It'll stop someone from casually browsing your Perl code but even the packer has to unpack the script before it can be run. Anyone who's determined can get the source code.
Decompiling C is a different beast altogether. Once it's compiled it's now machine code. You either end up with Assembly code with most C decompilers or some of the commercial C decompilers will take the Assembly code and try to generate equivalent C code but, unless it's a really simple program, seldom are able to recreate the original code.
every c program is converted to machine code, if this binary is distributed. Since the instruction set of a computer is well known, is it possible to get back the C original program?
You can never get back to the exact same source since there is no meta-data about that saved with the compiled code.
But you can re-create code out from the assembly-code.
Check out this book if you are interested in these things: Reversing: Secrets of Reverse Engineering.
Edit
Some compilers-101 here, if you were to define a compiler with another word and not as technical as "compiler", what would it be?
Answer: Translator
A compiler translates the syntax / phrases you have written into another language a C compiler translates to Assembly or even Machine-code. C# Code is translated to IL and so forth.
The executable you have is just a translation of your original text / syntax and if you want to "reverse it" hence "translate it back" you will most likely not get the same structure as you had at the start.
A more real life example would be if you Translate from English to German and the from German back to English, the sentance structure will most likely be different, other words might be used but the meaning, the context, will most likely not have changed.
The same goes for a compiler / translator if you go from C to ASM, the logic is the same, it's just a different way of reading it ( and of course its optimized ).
It depends on what you mean by original C program. Things like local variable names, comments, etc... are not included in the binary, so there's no way to get the exact same source code as the one used to produce the binary. Tools such as IDA Pro might help you disassemble a binary.
I would guestimate the conversion rate of a really skilled hacker at about 1 kilobyte of machine code per day. At common Western salaries, that puts the price of, say, a 100 KB executable at about $25,000. After spending that much money, all that's gained is a chunk of C code that does exactly what yours does, minus the benefit of comments and whatnot. It is no way competitive with your version, you'll be able to deliver updates and improvements much quicker. Reverse engineering those updates is a non trivial effort as well.
If that price tag doesn't impress you, you can arbitrarily raise the conversion cost by adding more code. Just keep in mind that skilled hackers that can tackle large programs like this have something much better to do. They write their own code.
One of the best works on this topic that I know about is:
Pigs from sausages? Reengineering from assembler to C via FermaT.
The claim is you get back a reasonable C program, even if the original asm code was not written in C! Lots of caveats apply.
The Hex-Rays decompiler (extension to IDA Pro) can do exactly that. It's still fairly recent and upcoming but showing great promise. It takes a little getting used to but can potentially speed up the reversing process. It's not a "silver bullet" - no c decompiler is, but it's a great asset.
The common name for this procedure is "turning hamburger back into cows." It's possible to reverse engineer binary code into a functionally equivalent C program, but whether that C code bears a close resemblance to the original is an open question.
Working on tools that do this is a research activity. That is, it is possible to get something in the easy cases (you won't recover local variables names unless debug symbols are present, for instance). It's nearly impossible in practice for large programs or if the programmer had decided to make it difficult.
There is not a 1:1 mapping between a C program and the ASM/machine code it will produce - one C program can compile to a different result on different compilers or with different settings) and sometimes two different bits of C could produce the same machine code.
You definitely can generate C code from a compiled EXE. You just can't know how similar in structure it will be to the original code - apart from variable/function names being lost, I assume it won't know the original way the code was split amongst many files.
You can try hex-rays.com, it has a really nice decompiler which can decompile assembly code into C with 99% accuracy.
I googled and I see a surprising amount of flippant responses basically laughing at the asker for asking such a question.
Microchip provides some source code for free (I don't want to post it here in case that's a no-no. Basically, google AN937, click the first link and there's a link for "source code" and its a zipped file). Its in ASM and when I look at it I start to go cross-eyed. I'd like to convert it to something resembling a c type language so that I can follow along. Because lines such as:
GLOBAL _24_bit_sub
movf BARGB2,w
subwf AARGB2,f
are probably very simple but they mean nothing to me.
There may be some automated ASM to C translator out there but all I can find are people saying its impossible. Frankly, its impossible for it to be impossible. Both languages have structure and that structure surely can be translated.
You can absolutely make a c program from assembler. The problem is it may not look like what you are thinking, or maybe it will. My PIC is rusty but using another assembler, say you had
add r1,r2
In C lets say that becomes
r1 = r1 + r2;
Possibly more readable. You lose any sense of variable names perhaps as values are jumping from memory to registers and back and the registers are being reused. If you are talking about the older pics that had what two registers an accumulator and another, well it actually might be easier because variables were in memory for the most part, you look at the address, something like
q = mem[0x12];
e = q;
q = mem[0x13];
e = e + q;
mem[0x12] = e;
Long and drawn out but it is clear that mem[0x12] = mem[0x12] + mem[0x13];
These memory locations are likely variables that will not jump around like compiled C code for a processor with a bunch of registers. The pic might make it easier to figure out the variables and then do a search and replace to name them across the file.
What you are looking for is called a static binary translation, not necessarily a translation from one binary to another (one processor to another) but in this case a translation from pic binary to C. Ideally you would want to take the assembler given in the app note and assemble it to a binary using the microchip tools, then do the translation. You can do dynamic binary translation as well but you are even less likely to find one of those and it doesnt normally result in C but one binary to another. Ever wonder how those $15 joysticks at wal-mart with pac-man and galaga work? The rom from the arcade was converted using static binary translation, optimized and cleaned up and the C or whatever intermediate language compiled for the new target processor in the handheld box. I imagine not all of them were done this way but am pretty sure some were.
The million dollar question, can you find a static binary translator for a pic? Who knows, you probably have to write one yourself. And guess what that means, you write a disassembler, and instead of disassembling to an instruction in the native assembler syntax like add r0,r1 you have your disassembler print out r0=r0+r1; By the time you finish this disassembler though you will know the pic assembly language so well that you wont need the asm to C translator. You have a chicken and egg problem.
Getting the exact same source code back from a compiled program is basically impossible. But decompilers have been an area of research in computer science (e.g. the dcc decompiler, which was a PhD project).
There are various algorithms that can be used to do pattern matching on assembly code and generate equivalent C code, but it is very hard to do this in a general way that works well for all inputs.
You might want to check out Boomerang for a semi-recent open source effort at a generalized decompiler.
I once worked a project where a significant part of the intellectual property was some serious algorithms coded up in x86 assembly code. To port the code to an embedded system, the developer of that code (not me) used a tool from an outfit called MicroAPL (if I recall correctly):
http://www.microapl.co.uk/asm2c/index.html
I was very, very surprised at how well the tool did.
On the other hand, I think it's one of those "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" type of things (their price ranges for a one-off conversion of a project work out to around 4 lines of assembly processed for a dollar).
But, often the assembly routines you get from a vendor are packaged as functions that can be called from C - so as long as the routines do what you want (on the processor you want to use), you might just need to assemble them and more or less forget about them - they're just library functions you call from C.
You can't deterministically convert assembly code to C. Interrupts, self modifying code, and other low level things have no representation other than inline assembly in C. There is only some extent to which an assembly to C process can work. Not to mention the resultant C code will probably be harder to understand than actually reading the assembly code... unless you are using this as a basis to begin reimplementation of the assembly code in C, then it is somewhat useful. Check out the Hex-Rays plugin for IDA.
Yes, it's very possible to reverse-engineer assembler code to good quality C.
I work for a MicroAPL, a company which produces a tool called Relogix to convert assembler code to C. It was mentioned in one of the other posts.
Please take a look at the examples on our web site:
http://www.microapl.co.uk/asm2c/index.html
There must be some automated ASM to C translator out there but all I can find are people saying its impossible. Frankly, its impossible for it to be impossible.
No, it's not. Compilation loses information: there is less information in the final object code than in the C source code. A decompiler cannot magically create that information from nothing, and so true decompilation is impossible.
It isn't impossible, just very hard. A skilled assembly and C programmer could probably do it, or you could look at using a Decompiler. Some of these do quite a good job of converting the asm to C, although you will probably have to rename some variables and methods.
Check out this site for a list of decompilers available for the x86 architecture.
Check out this: decompiler
A decompiler is the name given to a
computer program that performs the
reverse operation to that of a
compiler. That is, it translates a
file containing information at a
relatively low level of abstraction
(usually designed to be computer
readable rather than human readable)
into a form having a higher level of
abstraction (usually designed to be
human readable).
Not easily possible.
One of the great advantages of C over ASM apart from readability was that it prevented "clever" programing tricks.
There are numerous things you can do in assembler that have no direct C equivalent,
or involve tortuous syntax in C.
The other problem is datatypes most assemblers essentialy have only two interchangeable datatypes: bytes and words. There may be some language constructs to define ints and floats
etc. but there is no attempt to check that the memory is used as defined. So its very difficult to map ASM storage to C data types.
In addition all assembler storage is essentially a "struct"; storage is layed out in the order it is defined (unlike C where storage is ordered at the whim of the runtime). Many ASM programs depend on the exact storage layout - to acheive the same effect in C you would need to define all storage as part of a single struct.
Also there are a lot of absused instructions ( on olde worldy IBM manframes the LA, load address, instruction was regulary used to perform simple arithimatic as it was faster and didnt need an overflow register )
While it may be technically possible to translate to C the resulting C code would be less readable than the ASM code that was transalated.
I can say with 99% guarantee, there is no ready converter for this assembly language, so you need to write one. You can simply implement it replacing ASM command with C function:
movf BARGB2,w -> c_movf(BARGB2,w);
subwf AARGB2,f -> c_subwf(AARGB2,f);
This part is easy :)
Then you need to implement each function. You can declare registers as globals to make things easy. Also you can use not functions, but #defines, calling functions if needed. This will help with arguments/results processing.
#define c_subwf(x,y) // I don't know this ASM, but this is some Substraction must be here
Special case is ASM directives/labels, I think it can be converted with #defines only.
The fun starts when you'll reach some CPU-specific features. This can be simple function calls with stack operations, some specific IO/Memory operations. More fun are operations with Program Counter register, used for calculations, or using/counting ticks/latencies.
But there is another way, if this hardcore happens. It's hardcore too :)
There is a technique named dynamic recompilation exists. It's used in many emulators.
You don't need recompile your ASM, but the idea is almost the same. You can use all your #defines from first step, but add support of needed functionality to them (incrementing PC/Ticks). Also you need to add some virtual environment for your code, such as Memory/IO managers, etc.
Good luck :)
I think it is easier to pick up a book on PIC assembly and learn to read it. Assembler is generally quite simple to learn, as it is so low level.
Check out asm2c
Swift tool to transform DOS/PMODEW 386 TASM Assembly code to C code
It is difficult to convert a function from asm to C but doable by hand. Converting an entire program with a decompiler will give you code that can be impossible to understand since to much of the structure was lost during compilation. Without meaningful variable and function names the resultant C code is still very difficult to understand.
The output of a C compiler (especially unoptimised output) of an basic program could be translatable to C because of repeated patterns and structures.