yegord

It's merged into `ignore()` function. I guess, there are no explicit calls to `main()`, and the decompiler does not know that a call to `exit()` does not return (because it...

> does that matter ? For the currently implemented function reconstruction algorithm — yes. See https://github.com/yegord/snowman/blob/master/src/nc/core/ir/FunctionsGenerator.cpp#L97 One could just do `program.addCalledAddress()` for each address of a function symbol somewhere in...

No one would object. Actually, there was some code for inlining some time ago, see, e.g., 37391125ed8b90a2f411f4868f2f45f8164f16d6. The code was not used and was removed. One could bring it back...

Because it was not used. There was no access to inlining from the GUI.

Well, you definition of trivial may be different from the one of other users. :) So, Snowman prefers to be on the safe side: it produces what it sees (modulo...

I would prefer to give the user an ability to inline a particular function or a particular call through the GUI. But a switch is a good first step. At...

`nc::gui::Project::context()` `nc::gui::MainWindow` stores a pointer to a `Project`.

One needs to describe their semantics in `X86InstructionAnalyzer`, add floating-point constants and operations to IR (`nc::ir::UnaryOperator`, `nc::ir::BinaryOperator`), `nc::ir::types::TypeAnalyzer` and `likec`.

Yes. Decompile individual functions.

Close to zero. Somebody has to sit down and get the semantics of instructions implemented. Not me at this moment.