Home > Archive > Compilers > July 2005 > Re: Machine language and assembler translators?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: Machine language and assembler translators?
|
|
|
| glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> Jatin Bhateja, Noida wrote:
>
>
>
> (snip)
>
> ...
>
> When Apple started selling PowerPC based Macs the new OS included the
> ability to run 680x0 code, using some type of run time translation.
The first 68K emulator Apple shipped was an interpreter. The second
generation of Power Macs introduced a dynamic recompiling emulator
(much faster). This emulator is still in the Classic runtime of current
versions of OS X (so you can transparently run *integer* 68K code on
any Power Mac up to the present).
Apple plans to use a PowerPC emulator (Rosetta) to help users make the
transition from PowerPC to the x86-based product line. I'm surprised
they would go to so much effort, since unlike the 68K-PPC transition,
"porting" to the x86 architecture is largely just a recompile - the
APIs already being platform agnostic.
Much has been written about binary translation. For instance, there is
an informative white paper about ARDI's Syn68k:
http://www.ardi.com/syn68k.php There is a Yahoo! group,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dynarec/ which is occasionally active
and apparently working on a project. Past posts go into some detail on
translation technicalities.
--Toby
| |
| glen herrmannsfeldt 2005-07-26, 5:03 pm |
| toby wrote:
(snip)
(snip about Apple 68K emulator under PPC)
> Apple plans to use a PowerPC emulator (Rosetta) to help users make the
> transition from PowerPC to the x86-based product line. I'm surprised
> they would go to so much effort, since unlike the 68K-PPC transition,
> "porting" to the x86 architecture is largely just a recompile - the
> APIs already being platform agnostic.
Now, I wonder what happens when you run 68K mac code on an x86 emulating
PowerPC. Does it emulate the 68K emulator?
Hmm, that will be interesting to see...
-- glen
| |
| Hans Aberg 2005-07-28, 4:02 am |
| <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Does it emulate the 68K emulator?
No. In "Universal Binary Programming Guidelines", check out "Appendix A:
Rosetta; What can be translated?"
http://developer.apple.com/document...iversal_binary/
--
Hans Aberg
| |
| Jens Kilian 2005-07-28, 4:02 am |
| glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
> Now, I wonder what happens when you run 68K mac code on an x86 emulating
> PowerPC. Does it emulate the 68K emulator?
>
> Hmm, that will be interesting to see...
Seven(!) years ago, there was this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050726...ntests/five.jpg
(CP/M emulator running inside a Mac emulator, inside an MS-DOS prompt, inside
a Windows emulator, inside *another* Mac emulator, inside BeOS.)
--
mailto:jjk@acm.org As the air to a bird, or the sea to a fish,
http://www.bawue.de/~jjk/ so is contempt to the contemptible. [Blake]
http://del.icio.us/jjk
| |
| A Pietu Pohjalainen 2005-07-28, 4:02 am |
| glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> Now, I wonder what happens when you run 68K mac code on an x86 emulating
> PowerPC. Does it emulate the 68K emulator?
> Hmm, that will be interesting to see...
The current knowledge is that the Classic environment will be
scrapped on Intel macs. Too bad - it wouldn't be that big effort (as far
as I understand..) to convert it to run straight on x86. But then again,
maybe the benefits are even lower.
br,
Pietu
|
|
|
|
|