Michael van Elst (mlel...@speckled.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de) wrote:
: In <D32KGA....@unx.sas.com> ja...@cdevil.unx.sas.com (James Cooper) writes:
: >Main Disadvantages: Program load speed would be slower, due to the
: >translation step. Also, the resultant code may not be as absolutely
: >highly optimized as possible by directly coding for the specific CPU.
: The second point is the real problem. While it is better than a simulator
: for the "CPU-X" it will cost you probably a factor 2 in performance and
: program size, especially when the native CPU and "CPU-X" do not match.
Actually, anyone involved with this project should take the time to
read ftp://ftp.inf.ethz.ch/doc/diss/th10497.ps.gz . It describes a
very feasible way of doing a cross-platform binary system. I believe
the machines used in the study were 68k based and PowerPC based. I
haven't finished reading it yet (its long), but it seems like it might
be very applicable to this project. Some one else (I am sorry but I lost
the name) already suggested checking this out, and I did, and I second
: Michael van Elst
: Internet: mlel...@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de mlel...@serpens.rhein.de
: "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
thedw...@mail.utexas.edu <the Edward Blevins>