Expected Results
Comparison of tools
Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of a number of tools will serve to codify knowledge about reverse engineering tools. We also expect to learn about which tools work well together, and by extension the steps necessary to achieve greater tool interoperability.
These lessons can be used to improve existing tools and to develop better ones, as well as acquire the experience necessary to design infrastructure for community-wide sharing of tools.
Community Building
In this collaborative demonstration, participants will necessarily work together to produce results as well as interacting during the presentations and discussion. Furthermore, the collaboration will also promote learning and exploration of interoperability between reverse engineering tools.
The results from the first phase of this collaborative exercise were presented at the WCRE'2001 working conference in Stuttgart, October 2-5, 2001. Details on expected deliverables were outlined in the handbook.
Ongoing Results
Submitted reports from participants (updated Sept 24/2001):
| Tool | Group/Institution | Contact | Reports |
| Rigi tool | Rigi group University of Victoria |
Holger Kienle | Report (text) |
| cppX | SWAG (Software Architecture Group) University of Waterloo, Canada |
Andrew Malton | Report (HTML) |
| TkSee tool | KBRE Group University of Ottawa,Canada |
Sergey Marchenko | Early results Report (link) |
| SCG P.U.R.E. | Software Composition Group University of Berne, Switzerland |
Michele Lanza | Report (HTML) |
| COLUMBUS/CAN tool | Research group on Artificial Intelligence Hungarian Academy of Sciences, University of Szeged |
Rudolf Ferenc | Report (HTML) |
| KLOCwork Suite | KLOCwork group KLOCwork Solutions Corporation |
Nikolai Mansurov | |
| VIBRO (VIsualisation BROker Framework) | Visualisation Research Group University of Durham, UK |
Claire Knight | Report (html) |
| PBS | SWAG group University of Waterloo |
Davor Svetinovic | Incorporated in cppX report |

