Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • Not sure why someone would want to use an LLM to build a new decompiler instead of training an LLM to BE a decompiler.

    Especially given the fact that you have an infinite training set to train that LLM from (compilers can generate as much training data as you could possibly want).

    by ur-whale
  • There is no point to have an LLM do what can be done faster and deterministically by standard algorithms.
    by Rexxar
  • Yeah, fair question.

    I read this less as “build a decompiler with an LLM instead of training one to decompile,” and more as a different loop: you still get an artifact you can measure and improve against IDA / Ghidra / angr. Training on infinite compiler data is powerful for the first path; this post is mostly about the second one (i think, but i could wrong).

    by gopalraja
  • LLMs are famously inefficient, expensive and unreliable.
    by Tepix
  • this is really amazing work thank you and in my opinion (as its explained) a very good example of how to use AI powered development and research to advance the tools we have. decompilation is really hard, and better algorithms for it are very valuable contributions for many areas of tech.
    by saidnooneever
  • It would be cool to see agentic interpretation of function and variable names. It can see and track the flow of data a lot faster than a human can so if given some context, maybe it could synthesize names for them.
    by fishfasell
  • idalib with Claude Code already works really well. But honestly, despite what people have been saying, LLMs have been very good at decompiling for at least two years now, I have been using it for that purpose regularly. Even just copying disassembly from the current function and all nested called functions from IDA into ChatGPT is already unexpectedly good.
    by billypilgrim
  • I've used Claude with Ghidra MCP and had good success. It correctly identified and named MD5 functions, file IO functions, and the whole chain from a UI dialogue function. And when prompted it named all the interesting variables too.
    by snoopen
  • Haven't used IDA much lately, but after looking at the screenshot with that IDA PRO decompiled code in their website I feel like Ghidra is already ahead of them in this area :D
    by comandillos
  • I have seen some code where either Ghidra or IDA is producing the better output. It's not cut and dry, but in general, I do prefer Ghidra.
    by Orphis
  • Interesting. A lot of data shows IDA Pro is significantly better than Ghidra: https://decbench.com/

    Based on today's results, IDA Pro is ahead by 15 percentage points, which would mean, statistically, IDA Pro will recover perfect source code for 15% more functions than Ghidra on average.

    by mahaloz
  • Creator here! Since I saw some questions below, I'd like to clarify some things.

    Kuna is originally Ghidra ported to Rust, but it has changed quite a bit since. The results shown in the screenshot on the site are not a feature in Ghidra, which includes the Switch layout and some of the variable simplification. It's from Ghidra, previously talked about here [1].

    > It would be cool to see agentic interpretation of function and variable names.

    On DecBench, which I also created last week, you can see just that for Codex and Claude when given only assembly [2]. They dominate, but also have some significant recall problems.

    > Why not train an LLM to be a decompiler instead of make one

    Over the last two decades, this has been attempted _many_ times [3]. To date, there has been no successful project/paper that can compete with traditional decompilers on fundamental metrics. I speculate this is due to their inability to abstract the many-to-one mapping of optimization to code. This can change, but I desired to take a different approach.

    If frontier labs continue to get better, they will become the de facto decompilation users. Why not get LLMs to help LLMs? Design a core decompiler that helps them more than others :).

    [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP29biKLoSw

    [2]: https://decbench.com/leaderboard/?dataset=sample-set

    [3]: https://decompilation.wiki/fundamentals/neural-decompilation...

    by mahaloz