Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by siraben 5 days ago
It's highly likely that the original implementation language was assembly. The code is very idiomatic.

Regarding source build, I think reverse engineering it to the point where you can reconstruct the source is possibly legally problematic, so I don't plan to do this, but maybe for certain subsystems like MathPrint (equation display) which was especially fun to RE. I have a PR up for it and it will be live at

https://siraben.github.io/ti84p-re/mathprint
2 comments
ndiddy 5 days ago
Typically the approach taken by people who are concerned about legal issues regarding disassemblies is that they distribute a script file that contains all the code/data annotations, comments, variable names, and labels, and then the user can feed this file and a copy of the original binary into the disassembler to reproduce the disassembly. Here's a random example for a 6502 codebase: https://github.com/TakuikaNinja/FDS-disksys . IDA Pro has this functionality built in, you can export a .idc script file that will reproduce the .idb file if you load the original binary into a fresh instance of IDA Pro and then run the script. Maybe Ghidra has something similar, if not I bet you can get your AI to write export/import scripts for Ghidra.
link
jamesfinlayson 5 days ago
> It's highly likely that the original implementation language was assembly.

Agreed. I did a bit of development on a TI-84+ years ago and I was not a skilled programmer back then so only used TI-BASIC, but the fact you could only write apps in assembly makes me think the operating system was the same. ticalc.org had a gcc fork from memory though I don't recall which calculators it targetted.

link