Messages in this thread |  | | From | Albert Cahalan <> | Subject | Re: Driver optimization. | Date | Tue, 2 Jul 1996 02:26:35 -0400 (EDT) |
| |
> From: Derrik Pates <dpates@cavern.nmsu.edu> > On Sun, 30 Jun 1996, Khan M. Klatt wrote:
>> On a similar note, I was speaking to a friend who is fairly >> familiar with NT. He states that you can install NT 3.5/4.0 >> on computer A, a 586, and also on computer B, a DEC alpha, >> and also computer C, a PowerPC RS/6000. > > Not true- there are DIFFERENT binary versions for the different > platforms (iAPx86, MIPS R4x00, PowerPC, DEC AXP).
We could do that. Maybe someone would like to hack gcc so that it does fat binaries (all the way through, including *.o files, so that old Makefiles work). Then modify the install program to optionally strip out other architectures.
>> Then you can go to a store and buy Word or Office for NT, >> and install the same software on computer A and on computer >> B and on computer C. > > There's an EMULATIOn pack you can get from another company > (can't remember the name) to run NT binaries from other platforms > on your choice of NT platform. > >> Now I must admit this sounded really unlikely; after all, >> what kind of binary format could be implemented to generate >> code that is acceptable to a DEC Alpha, a Pentium, and a PowerPC?
Java, which is at least a Linux binary format.
> Exactly. Your friend there needs a lesson in NT - I and my > coworkers are working on getting an AlphaServer, running NT > and wanted to see about Win95 apps running on NT/AXP.
>> What does it take to do "binary compatibility" across platforms? (i.e. >> what does it take to run the *same* binary on x86, 68k, alpha, ppc? > > EMULATION!!!!!!!!!! > >> It would be nice to be able to say, "hey, if you install Linux >> on your machine, it will run all the code for Linux, whether >> compiled on PowerMac or on a Pentium"... > > Emulation is not easy, and often slow. The best emulation I've > seen is ARDI's Executor Mac emulation software.
It is also very nice to have. I'll take SPARC and Alpha please :-) I'm sure the non-PC ports of Linux could really use x86 emulation. Then they can run all the Linux/i386, SCO, BSD, DOS, and Windows apps.
> It's not easy, do you REALLY want to make an even bigger kernel? > You'd have to have emulation for EVERY CPU architecture that > Linux is written to and THAT would be BIG and SLOW.
Use kerneld I guess.
>> Is this an appropriate thing to have on a wish-list for 2.1? >> Hopefully, NT on a PowerPC or a DEC box isn't *emulating* x86 code; >> otherwise we see the horrendous performance you see on a PowerMac >> trying to execute 68k code!
NT on an Alpha emulating the i386 would be very fast. That is just because when you get an Alpha 21164 at 433 MHz with 8 MB cache... A new product from DEC also does on-the-fly conversion to native instructions, which get attached back onto the executable. Over time the whold executable gets translated. It even handles self-modifying code so you can run the latest Intel virus.
> Nope, not appropriate for your 2.1 wishlist. Maybe (big maybe) > 3.0, 3.1, or on down the road (once again, BIG maybe).
Isn't there a free i386 emulator that is partly done? Maybe this could go in the 2.1 wishlist, at least for i386 emulation.
|  |