i have installed on software and i want to see source code
i try to see source code with 010 editor but i see like this code
I've been with it for almost a week and I can not find code
I do not understand what code is
Without a disassembler, you're not going to get very far.
.exe files are compiled programs. The source code is optimized, converted into assembly, and then converted from assembly into hexadecimal machine code long before it ever touches your disk. There is no easy way to read the "source" code of an executable without a disassembler which can generate psuedocode from assembly, and even then, the generated code will have compiler optimizations thrown into the mix, so the source code generated will not be identical to the original source.
The only way to read the actual source code of a compiled executable is if it's compiled with debugging symbols, which should display the source alongside assembly using the right tools. But this must be done at the compile stage, and is impossible to do with just the EXE file you have.
In short, this is impossible unless you can understand assembly, have a disassembler, and are willing to slog through and reconstruct the code by hand.
Related
I use FORTRAN gnu compiler to compile a piece of code written using fortran(.f90). Unlike in other compilers the output of write statement are not displayed in the screen rather written in the output file.
For example I have placed "write(*,*) 'Check it here'" in the middle of the source code so that this message is displayed in the screen when someone runs the compiled version of the code.
I dont understand why this message is not displayed in the terminal window while running the code, but it is written in the output file.
I would appreciate your help to resolve this !!
>
I am compiling these source codes:
https://github.com/firemodels/fds/tree/master/Source
makefile that I am using to compile the code is located here:
https://github.com/firemodels/fds/tree/master/Build/mpi_intel_linux_64
I run the program using a executable that makefile creates
The version of the compiler that I am using is
GNU Fortran (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.5) 5.4.0 20160609
>
Thank you.
Way bigger picture: Is there a reason you're building FDS from source rather than downloading binaries directly from NIST i.e. from https://pages.nist.gov/fds-smv/downloads.html ?
Granted, if you're qualifying the code for safety-related use, you may need to compile from source rather than use someone else's binaries. You may need to add specific info to a header page such as code version, date of run, etc. to satisfy QA requirements.
If you're just learning about FDS (practicing fire analysis, learning about CFD, evaluating the code), I'd strongly suggest using NIST's binaries. If you need/want to compile it from source, we'll need more info to diagnose the problem.
That said, operating on the assumption that you have a use case that requires that you build the code, your specific problem seems to be that writing to the default output unit * isn't putting the output where you expect.
Modern Fortran provides the iso_fortran_env module which formalizes a lot of the obscure trivia of Fortran, in this case, default input and output units.
In the module you're editing, look for something like:
use iso_fortran_env
or
use iso_fortran_env, only: output_unit
or
use, intrinsic:: iso_fortran_env, only: STDOUT => output_unit
If you see an import of output_unit or (as in the last case) an alias to it, write to that unit instead of to *.
If you don't an import from iso_fortran_env, add the last line above to the routine or module you're printing from and write to STDOUT instead of *.
That may or may not fix things, depending on if the FDS authors do something strange to redirect IO. They might; I'm not sure how writing to screen works in an MPI environment where the code may run in parallel on a number of networked machines (I'd write to a networked logging system in that case, but that's just me). But in a simple case of a single instance of the code running, writing to output_unit is more precise than writing to * and more portable and legible than writing to 6.
Good luck with FDS; I tried using it briefly to model layer formation from a plume of hydrogen gas in air. FDS brought my poor 8 CPU machine to its knees so I went back to estimating it by hand instead of trying to make CFD work...
I have some C code I would like to optimize. It turns out the Intel C Compiler (ICC) does a much better job at this than GCC but I don't have a copy of that compiler and it is very expensive. However, I can compile it using ICC and get the assembly online at godbolt.org.
If I copy and paste this assembly into a text file, how can I then convert it into a functioning executable?
You will need to begin by making sure that the runtime environment for which godbolt.org compiles is similar enough to your runtime environment, (good luck with that,) because for example you may be using windows, and godbolt.org may be using linux, (or the other way around,) so when you bring the assembly to your system you might be able to convert it to object code, but it will still not link and it will not run.
Then you will need to find an assembler for your platform which is compatible with the syntax of assembly produced by the intel C compiler of godbolt.org so as to produce object files from the assembly files. (Good luck with that.)
Then you will need to find any and all runtime libraries (redistributables) required by code produced by the intel C compiler. (Good luck with that.)
Finally you will need to obtain a linker to link your resulting object files with the runtime libraries to produce an executable. (Good luck with that.)
Sometimes we need honest answers to our questions just so that we can realize how impossible our ideas are.
I'm trying to learn AVR development in C and Assembly for the Arduino Uno (Atmel 328p microprocessor) in Linux.
I've found many good guides on how to install and setup the AVR plugin for Eclipse, and I've no problem building and uploading C code. However there doesn't seem to be any menu options for creating an assembler project, nor can I seem to find the correct syntax for using the cli avr-as for assembling my programs into a .hex file.
You have a couple choices. I don't know about eclipse, (I just use vim and make directly) but the compilation procedure should be the same.
You can:
Write a mostly C project, in-lining whatever assembly you want. This is usually the easiest method. Check out the AVR-GCC Inline Assembler Cookbook.
Write a purely ASM application that doesn't use the linker at all. e.g. a one-file application (or one file that directly includes the rest of the project explicitly). You'll have to tell your build tool what to do to process the file, but it can be as simple as one invocation of avra or avr-as. You must be sure to carefully do all the low-level initialization and build a complete interrupt vector table for the MCU you're using, or you may get unexpected behavior.
Write a mixed C and ASM application linking between object files from both languages. To do that you do the same thing you would for a pure C project, except some (maybe all) of your source files will need to be assembly. You'll have to tell your build tool how to assemble them in to object files. In a Makefile this would be writing the correct rule (or more likely setting up the ${AS} macro to use the correct assembler). In eclipse there is probably a project setting for it, but with any IDE YMMV. This is probably the hardest option, as you'll have to know the calling convention and ABI of your compiler to successfully execute your pure ASM code.
I need some information on executable files, thanks in advance, this is a new topic in our grade.
I've seen a lot of questions asking how to extract, but my question is why can't we get the original source code? Yeah using decompilers we can extract but those codes are not the exact code used to develop the program.
I mean, if a computer is running a software it obviously has to have some code to refer from, then why can't we get that code? Also, do exe files have the same code which is developed by the programmer? Is it that OSs are developed in such a way that they don't leak source code from an executable file?
The .exe file is made up of binary numbers which consist of 1's and 0's. And these files contain some additional code that support code from many source.
Operating systems use binary languages to operate, this is what we call machine code. (Getting the code back from the exe is like getting the apple back from the apple juice) ;)
Also check Compiled vs. Interpreted Languages
The process to transform the source code into the exe file is extremely complex. For example, when it is being compile, the language of the source code (eg. c++ etc) is transformed into machine code. It is like when you eat something, those things turns into feces after being process by your stomach. Therefore it's quite impossible to revert exe file to source code.
How do I compile my VC++ project to a 16-bit flat object file for use in my bootloader I am working on?
To my understanding, an object file is technically already "flat" and the linker turns it into the destination executable format. What I want it to be able to obtain that object file and pass that and my assembly code (in obj format) through the linker to create a flat bootloader.
The [guide][1] is not very specific on where the files are located and just says that you use cl.exe, link.exe, and ml.exe (MASM).
The guide uses MASM, but I know how to output object files with NASM. My main problem is the VC++ thing.
The last 16-bit compiler from Microsoft was VC++ 1.52c. It's ancient, and probably not available any more. Even if it was, chances are pretty good that it wouldn't compile any recent code. Just to name a few of its most obvious shortcomings, it had no support for templates, exception handling, or namespaces at all.
I believe most people working on things like that any more use Open Watcom (which isn't exactly up to date either, but still better than VC++ 1.52c).