Hacking by Breaking: Five Strategies to Reverse Engineer Opaque Compilers A technical guide outlines five reverse-engineering strategies for diagnosing performance problems in closed-source ML compilers such as libtpu.so, proprietary MLIR accelerator plugins, and cuBLASLt routines, where a four-fold performance drop in a production LLM pipeline can otherwise take six months to resolve through vendor support. The strategies include feeding malformed inputs to trigger internal assertions and recover embedded .rodata strings via `strings -a` after `strip --strip-debug` or `strip --strip-all`, intercepting dynamic symbols through LD_PRELOAD shims on cuLaunchKernel and cublasLtMatmul, sniffing vtables in GDB, extracting in-memory IR bytecode, and disassembling PTX/SASS hardware kernels. The approach matters because vendors' support portals demand minimal standalone reproducers that proprietary model weights and legal restrictions often prevent engineers from sharing. Hacking by Breaking: Five Strategies to Reverse Engineer Opaque Compilers You hit a four-fold performance drop in a production LLM pipeline. The profiler points straight at a closed-source binary blob: libtpu.so , a proprietary MLIR accelerator plugin, or a closed routine in cuBLASLt. You file a support ticket with the hardware vendor. Their portal demands a minimal standalone reproducer. But your computation graph uses proprietary model weights, your company’s legal team refuses to share the code, and the vendor’s engineering turnaround takes six months. You have no source code. You have a stripped .so file, a core dump, and an SLA to hit. The standard response is to treat the compiler as an inscrutable black box and resort to superstitious trial-and-error—tweaking batch sizes, inserting dummy operations, or padding tensor shapes in the dark. I hate guessing at compiler heuristics. Superstition has no place in systems engineering. Compilers cannot hide their true behavior. A compiler is a deterministic state machine that must allocate host memory, emit hardware-specific instructions, conform to operating system calling conventions, and enforce thousands of internal invariant assertions. Even when a vendor strips .symtab , disables debug logging, and packs its backend into a monolithic shared library, the binary remains physically bound to the machine it runs on. When an opaque compiler refuses to tell you how it works, you break it on purpose. You feed it malformed inputs to trigger its internal assertions, intercept its dynamic symbols, sniff its vtables in a debugger, extract its in-memory IR bytecodes, and disassemble its hardware kernels. php flowchart TD A "Host Python / C++ Frontend" -- |"Malformed Inputs Strategy 1 "| B "Compiler Pipeline Opaque .so " B -- |"Memory Scraper Strategy 5 "| C "In-Memory IR / Bytecode