I have a program in which I've lost the C++ source code. Are there any good C++ decompilers out there?
I've already ran across Boomerang.
This question is related to
c++
reverse-engineering
decompiling
Yes, but none of them will manage to produce readable enough code to worth the effort. You will spend more time trying to read the decompiled source with assembler blocks inside, than rewriting your old app from scratch.
Depending on how large and how well-written the original code was, it might be worth starting again in your favourite language (which might still be C++) and learning from any mistakes made in the last version. Didn't someone once say about writing one to throw away?
n.b. Clearly if this is a huge product, then it may not be worth the time.
Yes, but none of them will manage to produce readable enough code to worth the effort. You will spend more time trying to read the decompiled source with assembler blocks inside, than rewriting your old app from scratch.
Depending on how large and how well-written the original code was, it might be worth starting again in your favourite language (which might still be C++) and learning from any mistakes made in the last version. Didn't someone once say about writing one to throw away?
n.b. Clearly if this is a huge product, then it may not be worth the time.
information is discarded in the compiling process. Even if a decompiler could produce the logical equivalent code with classes and everything (it probably can't), the self-documenting part is gone in optimized release code. No variable names, no routine names, no class names - just addresses.
information is discarded in the compiling process. Even if a decompiler could produce the logical equivalent code with classes and everything (it probably can't), the self-documenting part is gone in optimized release code. No variable names, no routine names, no class names - just addresses.
I haven't seen any decompilers that generate C++ code. I've seen a few experimental ones that make a reasonable attempt at generating C code, but they tended to be dependent on matching the code-generation patterns of a particular compiler (that may have changed, it's been awhile since I last looked into this). Of course any symbolic information will be gone. Google for "decompiler".
Yes, but none of them will manage to produce readable enough code to worth the effort. You will spend more time trying to read the decompiled source with assembler blocks inside, than rewriting your old app from scratch.
Depending on how large and how well-written the original code was, it might be worth starting again in your favourite language (which might still be C++) and learning from any mistakes made in the last version. Didn't someone once say about writing one to throw away?
n.b. Clearly if this is a huge product, then it may not be worth the time.
I haven't seen any decompilers that generate C++ code. I've seen a few experimental ones that make a reasonable attempt at generating C code, but they tended to be dependent on matching the code-generation patterns of a particular compiler (that may have changed, it's been awhile since I last looked into this). Of course any symbolic information will be gone. Google for "decompiler".
I haven't seen any decompilers that generate C++ code. I've seen a few experimental ones that make a reasonable attempt at generating C code, but they tended to be dependent on matching the code-generation patterns of a particular compiler (that may have changed, it's been awhile since I last looked into this). Of course any symbolic information will be gone. Google for "decompiler".
Depending on how large and how well-written the original code was, it might be worth starting again in your favourite language (which might still be C++) and learning from any mistakes made in the last version. Didn't someone once say about writing one to throw away?
n.b. Clearly if this is a huge product, then it may not be worth the time.
information is discarded in the compiling process. Even if a decompiler could produce the logical equivalent code with classes and everything (it probably can't), the self-documenting part is gone in optimized release code. No variable names, no routine names, no class names - just addresses.
information is discarded in the compiling process. Even if a decompiler could produce the logical equivalent code with classes and everything (it probably can't), the self-documenting part is gone in optimized release code. No variable names, no routine names, no class names - just addresses.
Source: Stackoverflow.com