home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: osse.nrl.navy.mil!jung
- From: jung@osse.nrl.navy.mil (Greg Jung)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: 680X0 -> PPC translator?
- Date: 23 Feb 1996 21:45:10 GMT
- Organization: NRL, Washington, D.C. - Code 7650
- Sender: jung@osse.nrl.navy.mil ()
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <4glch6$rle@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
- References: <4fstt2$old@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> <PETERM.96Feb19135541@tui.maths.irl.cri.nz>
- Reply-To: jung@osse.nrl.navy.mil ()
- NNTP-Posting-Host: osser.nrl.navy.mil
- X-Newsreader: mxrn 6.18-32
-
-
- In article <PETERM.96Feb19135541@tui.maths.irl.cri.nz>, peterm@maths.grace.cri.nz (Peter McGavin) writes:
- |>fkrj@crux4.cit.cornell.edu (Benjamin Kenobi) writes:
- |>>I'm just wondering, is there any good reason AT can't write a program which
- |>>will tranlsate binary executables from 680X0 -> PPC, doing optimizations along
- |>>the way? That way we could translate most of our old software and it would
- |>>run efficiently. Why didn't Apple do this with the PowerMacs?
- Probably because it is not worthwhile. Anything worth preserving
- is worth upgrading, ie will be upgradable. Things for which the code
- is lost, just accept the loss. The big difference will be in the new
- things you can consider doing with the machine, not in the speed-up
- of the standard fare, which is already paced to run ok at '030 level.
-
- Greg
-