jtr7 on 2/7/2009 at 06:53
So all these years when we've been asking for the source code, we've had it all along? And nobody clued us all in?:o:o:o:o:o
I know we've recently asked for permission to decompile the editors in case we can't get the raw source code.
Volca on 2/7/2009 at 07:04
:D
If the right to disassemble/decompile DromED or ShockED would be legally granted to us, I think it would be worth the trying, although it would require tremendous amount of work (on the tools first, then the metadata and the disassembly). A lot could be assumed from certain function calls or debugging info (function names, asserts also contain line numbers and file names for example). It would still be a project for years though...
*Zaccheus* on 2/7/2009 at 18:42
Quote Posted by jtr7
So all these years when we've been asking for the source code, we've had it all along? And nobody clued us all in?:o:o:o:o:o
I know we've recently asked for permission to decompile the editors in case we can't get the raw source code.
Not quite the c++ source code, but something like the assembler source code with meaningful function names etc.
I had actually suggested the possibility back in 2007:
(
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1645800#post1645800)
At that point I was not aware that DromEd did contain the debug info.
Displacer on 2/7/2009 at 21:21
Quote Posted by Volca
:D
If the right to disassemble/decompile DromED or ShockED would be legally granted to us, I think it would be worth the trying, although it would require tremendous amount of work (on the tools first, then the metadata and the disassembly). A lot could be assumed from certain function calls or debugging info (function names, asserts also contain line numbers and file names for example). It would still be a project for years though...
Err *ahem*
SunBeam on 2/7/2009 at 21:52
"It would still be a project for years though..."
At least we die in glory ;)
Volca on 3/7/2009 at 07:06
Quote Posted by Displacer
Err *ahem*
I meant mainly decompilation to high level language (C++), I didn't forget about you and your valued work ;)
Timeslip on 3/7/2009 at 07:22
I'll add my name to the list of people who wont let code go to waste if it ever is released. (Is there even such a list? I know there's plenty of good coders around here...)
As for decompilition, it's possible, but it's hard. I spent a few weeks turning a part of fallout 2 back into C, (And thanks to the mac version, I had some debug info there too, mainly the names of functions and global variables,) and based on the number of functions I got through I worked it out as something like 2 years to reverse the whole game. A team effort would reduce that a lot, but on the other hand fallout had some major advantages over thief in that it was written in C, far smaller and compiled with a compiler that didn't do many weird optimizations. Thief is c++ and heavily object oriented, which makes things a lot harder. :(
jtr7 on 3/7/2009 at 07:29
So it's kinda like mapping the taffer genome.
Is DromEd the source code, then, or is the source code as I originally understood it to be, the raw non-compiled code that won't need work just to begin sifting through it?
Timeslip on 3/7/2009 at 07:33
Quote Posted by jtr7
Is DromEd the source code, then, or is the source code as I originally understood it to be, the raw non-compiled code that won't need work just to begin sifting through it?
No, dromed isn't the source code, (unless someone has a version of dromed different to mine...) it just contains some of the information from the source code that normally gets lost when the code is compiled into an exe. Your original understanding is correct.
jtr7 on 3/7/2009 at 07:34
Thanks.:thumb:
