Disassembler
in [Cobol]
|
From: CG on 27 Feb 2006 14:24 Oliver Wong wrote: > > "CG" <carl.gehr.RemoveThis(a)ThisToo.attglobal.net> wrote in message > news:b890d$44034ace$453db2dd$13218(a)FUSE.NET... >> Again, I think you are missing the point of this... There is NO >> ASSEMBLER involved. The process goes from MACHINE INSTRUCTIONS to >> COBOL SOURCE CODE. No need for the customer/user/programmer to have >> any knowledge of Assembler at all. >> >> If you prefer, call it a DisCOBOLER instead of a DisASSEMBLER. > > I think the term traditionally used is "decompiler". Yeh! I thought about that, but Pete seemed so hung up on the specific language, that seemed more to the point. CG
From: Howard Brazee on 27 Feb 2006 14:59 On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 14:24:13 -0500, CG <carl.gehr.RemoveThis(a)ThisToo.attglobal.net> wrote: >>> If you prefer, call it a DisCOBOLER instead of a DisASSEMBLER. >> >> I think the term traditionally used is "decompiler". > >Yeh! I thought about that, but Pete seemed so hung up on the specific >language, that seemed more to the point. I suppose you could decompile code into just about any language you want. The more optimized the code, the more useless the decompiled results.
From: William M. Klein on 27 Feb 2006 16:16 Keith, Just in case it got lost in the thread, to the best of my knowledge the Source-Recovery products/services/whatever are limited to IBM mainframe COBOL. If you are working in another environment / with another compiler, I am not certain (actually I doubt) they can help you. If you ARE in an IBM mainframe environment, I have heard VERY GOOD reports on what they can do. -- Bill Klein wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com "CG" <carl.gehr.RemoveThis(a)ThisToo.attglobal.net> wrote in message news:44034D7B.5060609(a)ThisToo.attglobal.net... > Keith Lowe wrote: >> "Alistair" <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:1140879796.171911.152550(a)e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >>> Reading in comp.lang.asm370 I came across the following item which may >>> be of some interest: >>> >>> <QUOTE> >>> >>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:54:57 -0500, Gilbert Saint-Flour wrote: >>> <usenet5...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> I found this page by accident a moment ago: >>>> >> http://patents.nimblewisdom.com/patent/5946484-Method-of-recovering-source-code-from-object-code >>>> It's a patent issued in 1999 by the USPTO for a disassembler, which >>>> wasn't a >>>> new concept back then (I've written my first disassembler in 1982). >>> >>>> The problem is that the language of patents is so arcane that it's >>>> difficult >>>> to spot the original elements of this patent, or if there's any >>>> originality >>>> in it at all. Hopefully, one of you will dig something up. >>> >>> >>> It appears to be more than just a dissassembler, based on the generated >>> >>> assembly code it looks for known patterns charateristic of the IBM >>> Cobol >>> compiler and attempts to symthesize the Cobol source, as nearly as I >>> can >>> tell in 5 minutes. But this has been done for many years, I am not >>> sure >>> what is novel here. >>> >>> </QUOTE> >>> >>> Perhaps there will soon be an answer to the perennial "Where can I find >>> a cobol disassembler?" >> >> >> Apologies if this is an obvious question.... but where can I find a cobol >> disassembler ? I've read the instructions and I am none the wiser !!! >> >> Keith > > Contact Jim Rahm, Source Recovery Company: > http://www.source-recovery.com/ > or more direct: > http://www.source-recovery.com/srcn-contactus.html > [Feel free to tell him where you got the reference.] > Note: I have no direct involvement or interest in them. I have just worked > with Jim off and on for the last ten years.
From: Pete Dashwood on 28 Feb 2006 06:48 "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias(a)gte.net> wrote in message news:5xGMf.38010$F_3.4082(a)newssvr29.news.prodigy.net... > > "Peter Lacey" <lacey(a)mts.net> wrote in message > news:4403301A.2400BA98(a)mts.net... >> Pete Dashwood wrote: >> >> > Ah, the joys of maintaining source... :-) >> >> Don't start that again! It isn't every shop that has the luxury of no >> inherited programs. Are you also saying that compiled objects never get >> lost????? > > Worse: The source code in the 'official, sacred, controlled' archive is > NOT > the source code for the compiled program. > > I think I'd rather start over than discover that the hard way. (again). > > MCM > I agree. That's why I'm advocating NOT mantaining source code. It is a highly error prone process that causes more harm than it heals... Pete.
From: Pete Dashwood on 28 Feb 2006 06:51
"Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message news:lhd602hs3ie1rgrfbp0js4vm4kd13q0n9h(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 11:00:10 -0600, Peter Lacey <lacey(a)mts.net> wrote: > >>Don't start that again! It isn't every shop that has the luxury of no >>inherited programs. Are you also saying that compiled objects never get >>lost????? > > We're moving towards a Java environment for much of our code. I went > to modify a method and first did a search to determine where the code > was copied - and found 161 copies of a file which I had created, which > was copied by the trunk and branches and a bunch of places that I > don't get. I'm told not to worry about it, but that's hard from my > background. > I agree, and like you, I'd be worryig about it too. It would appaear some severe source control is required. > The code in these are not all the same. > > Vernor Vinge has a SF novel which includes people working as software > archeologists, digging down through systems trying to clean up > thousands of years of interactions. > I'd like to read that! :-) Pete. |