Note: this content originally from http://mygreenpaste.blogspot.com. If you are reading it from some other site, please take the time to visit My Green Paste, Inc. Thank you.

Previously, I had written about the puzzlers on the NTDebugging / Microsoft Advanced Windows Debugging and Troubleshooting blog - specifically, the most recent puzzler which involved reverse engineering some assembler. The answer was posted today - there were a lot of responses, and a lot of correct responses.

I had posted the hashes for my answer (which was correct), that I am now able to disclose...

void myfun( char* param1 )
{
    size_t local1 = strlen( param1 );
    for( int local2 = local1; local2 > 0; local2-- )
    {
        for( int local3 = 0; local3 < local2 - 1; local3++ )
        {
            if( *(param1+local3) > *(param1+local3+1) )
            {

Note: this content originally from http://mygreenpaste.blogspot.com. If you are reading it from some other site, please take the time to visit My Green Paste, Inc. Thank you.

Over on the Microsoft Advanced Windows Debugging and Troubleshooting blog, they've been posting a "Puzzler" every Monday and providing the answers the following Friday.

The puzzlers are fun to participate in and it is interesting to read people's responses - everyone has their own ideas and own experiences to draw off of.

With the third puzzler, the blog authors have decided to make the challenge a bit more difficult - the latest puzzler requires one to reverse engineer some assembler.

I've not got much experience with reverse engineering assembler - I can read some assembler and can usually get a very basic idea of what a targeted chunk of code is doing. So it was an interesting challenge for me to attempt to C-ify the assembler they provided. It doesn't appear that the authors are posting the responses until they reveal the answer (makes sense to me!). But I thought I'd post hashes of my response, which I'll also post once the NT Debugging blog authors post