![]() Hell, after all these years working with this sort of stuff /I/ find them daunting. To be blunt without intending to cause offence, it will be faster for him to find the source than for you to learn IDA or Ghidra. If all you want is to analyze a handful of functions in the program then those utilities/dis-assemblers/"decompilers" are definitely helpful. Dis-assemblers are very helpful to investigate a program, not recreating it, provided their user is completely comfortable with Assembler. ![]() That said, their "decompilation" can be helpful to see the structural flow of a function. Also, there are some programs out there billing themselves as "decompilers", IDA Pro has a "decompiler" plug-in, Ghidra offers "decompilation" too as do a number of other programs but, only someone who confuses a dog turd with Swiss chocolate (or someone who'll say anything to get your money) would call the result a "decompilation". IF settling for an assembly file that operates the same as the original program is "acceptable" then a tool like IDA Pro can definitely be very helpful in getting you there but, as far as getting the Pascal source back, simply forget it. A DOS type program without debugging symbols is extremely laborious to recreate. ![]() ![]() If the executable has debug symbols in it then a program like IDA Pro can provide some _assistance_ in your rewriting it. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |