Chisel 
logo  Computer Human Interaction & Software 
Engineering Lab

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