From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Thu Feb 14 06:15:41 2008 Message-ID: <20080214110752.2v20vh8rb4woowgs@pop.freeola.net> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:07:52 +0000 From: p.slegg@scubadivers.co.uk To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi Subject: Re: [MiNT] 68k binary emulator References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.0.3) X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: p.slegg@scubadivers.co.uk Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: Quoting Peter Persson : > Hi, > > Lately I've been working on a rather silly project which I thought > I'd share with you. Basically it's a 68000 binary emulator, which > launches an application in an emulated environment, but tunnels OS > calls etc. to the host OS. > > Why on earth would anyone want to do this? Well, today it's fairly > pointless, but let's say someone ports the kernel to PPC, Arm or > whatever. An emulator of this kind could then be used to provide some > basic degree of compatibility with 68k applications. About 8-9 years ago when people were discussing porting to cf or PPC I was thinking about the various approaches to porting applications although my C skills weren't/aren't up to it. When an M68k GEM app is run, the calls to the GEM/OS features would be passed directly on. The remaining parts of code would have to be converted to the appropriate assembler. This might be like the method you have used. Then I thought that rather than emulating everytime an old app is run, why not, convert it once and save the new version of the application in it's cf or PPC version ? Peter