"Robert" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:odtvv3578uv16965lp2bmlp4nl1g5lohiu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:27:32 -0700 (PDT), Felipe José Angriman
> <felipeangriman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>>I'm interested in knowing opcodes of the intermediate represetation,
>>not the opcodes for a particular machine, like the x86
>>
> If you want to be the first, I suggest getting a hard or soft ICE and
> tracing the
> interpreter. Don't be surprised to find obfuscation in the p-code, a
stack
> oriented
> virtual machine and many calls to runtime 'library' code.
Well, I see Mr. Angriman has suc***bed to the dose of reality delivered by
your post and decided to abandon this quest .
But had that not disabused him of his plan, you could have pulled out the
true "ace in the hole:"
If he had any plans to build this interpreter for anything other than his
personal use.. that is, might have distributed it to anyone with or
without
consideration (Ok, so 'consideration' is a legal word, real people would
say
'compensation' or 'payment'), he faced both civil and criminal actions for
copyright and/or patent infringement if he were not totally 'pure'
vis-a-vis
prior exposure to the RM-COBOL product.
You might recall it was a key requirement for the first PC "clone"
manufacturers that whomever did the reverse-engineering be totally and
absolutely 'virgin' at the outset when replicating the chips and
firmware..
any prior exposure 'tainted' the engineers (or should they be called
'reverse engineers?') by automatically making them subject to the terms of
the license issued to the party who generated the specifications.. terms
which prohibited reverse-engineering.
It's of course now moot in this particular case, but I thought I'd throw
that in just in case anyone else gets the urge.
--
Michael C. Mattias
Tal Systems Inc.
Racine WI
mmattias@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
