home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: newsfeed.internetmci.com!xmission!xmission!not-for-mail
- From: butlerm@xmission.xmission.com (Mark David Butler)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: 680X0 -> PPC translator?
- Date: 12 Mar 1996 21:33:55 -0700
- Organization: XMission Internet (801 539 0900)
- Message-ID: <4i5j7j$gjv@xmission.xmission.com>
- References: <19960307.41C900.103A8@an168.du.pipex.com> <Dny169.BJH@cix.compulink.co.uk> <19960308.41E5A8.1098C@an157.du.pipex.com> <3145556F.2839@sapiens.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: xmission.xmission.com
-
- Excuse me, but no rational dynamic translator in existence would
- attempt to write the translation on top of the original machine code
- in memory. It would allocate new memory for the target code on the fly
- instead.
-
- Primary advantages:
-
- Extremely high performance (4-5 times faster than emulation)
- Translation can run in the background while emulation runs in the foreground.
- No code / data identification issue as with static translators.
- Can be designed to execute self modifying code.
- Programs do not have to be translated manually ahead of time.
-
- Primary disadvantages:
-
- At least doubles code space requirement.
-
-
- In article <3145556F.2839@sapiens.com>, Avi Lev <avil@sapiens.com> wrote:
- >
- >let me give you a simple reason why you're wrong and why dynamic translation is NOT the way to
- >go, well you're assuming that the translated PPC code will be of the same size as the original
- >code, well that is simply not necessarally true and what do you do then??? you can't change the
- >segment size of the hunk in memory during run-time and even if you could that would have a
- >great performance impact cuz you would have to rewrite all the code in the newly allocated
- >segment each time you need more space, and as far as i know PPC instructions do require more
- >space than 680x0.
- .....
- --
- Mark David Butler ( butlerm @ xmission.com )
-
-