You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Right now a Function contains information to build a function signature (name, calling convention, type), this would classify as inter-function analysis, i.e. the transition from one Function to another Function would constitute knowing that information, whereas intra-function analysis would be the information internal to a Function.
Examples of intra-function information:
Variables
Comments
Stack pointer adjustments
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I should note comments attached to the function are technically possible through the function type, but that is hardly acceptable. I think functions themselves should have a separate comment metadata, or at least some way other than adding a comment at offset 0, even if the integration does not distinguish between the two.
To clarify "functions themselves" means attached to the function header, rather than showing up within the function body.
Looks like a great feature. Regarding your note on:
I think functions themselves should have a separate comment metadata, or at least some way other than adding a comment at offset 0...
I totally agree. I frequently add comments at offset 0 to describe what the function is doing. Since WARP is geared toward function signatures anyway, I think this is a great way to initially limit scope.
Right now a
Function
contains information to build a function signature (name, calling convention, type), this would classify as inter-function analysis, i.e. the transition from oneFunction
to anotherFunction
would constitute knowing that information, whereas intra-function analysis would be the information internal to aFunction
.Examples of intra-function information:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: