From: Hans-Bernhard Broeker <broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Reverse-compiler
Date: 3 Apr 2000 17:08:10 GMT
Organization: Aachen University of Technology (RWTH)
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <8caj5q$ii3$1@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>
References: <8c3eae$j1l$1 AT news6 DOT svr DOT pol DOT co DOT uk> <8c457a$162$1 AT news7 DOT svr DOT pol DOT co DOT uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: acp3bf.physik.rwth-aachen.de
X-Trace: nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE 954781690 19011 137.226.32.75 (3 Apr 2000 17:08:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT rwth-aachen DOT de
NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Apr 2000 17:08:10 GMT
Originator: broeker@
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Ben Davis <ben AT vjpoole DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> wrote:

> In the future, I will keep backups before I start invoking GCC
> manually; 

I doubt that. Really. Forgetting to keep backups is even more like to
happen accidentally than mistyping a gcc command line that badly.

> but I should point out to anyone concerned that GCC should
> *not* have deleted a source file.

Well --- you asked it to. Unix-borne tools like gcc are in the habit
of doing exactly what you say, wherever possible. If you 'rm -rf /' on
a Unix box as root, that's what it'll do.

> Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention: I do have an object file, if it's any
> use.

Having the .o file makes it simpler to recover the source, sure, but
not simple enough to be tractable. The main problem is in the
transition between C and assembly, done by the compiler itself
('cc1.exe'). There, all information about details of the C source gets
spoilt to the point of being unrecoverable.



-- 
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.