From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1BM3yc-0004aS-R1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 07:57:14 -0400 Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1BM3nA-0003UB-6p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 07:45:55 -0400 Received: from [195.149.39.210] (helo=ixion.tartarus.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BM3br-0001jD-Ig for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 07:33:43 -0400 Received: from chris by ixion.tartarus.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) for qemu-devel@nongnu.org id 1BM3bq-0002xy-00; Fri, 07 May 2004 12:33:42 +0100 Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 12:33:42 +0100 From: Chris Emerson Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Stuff. Message-ID: <20040507113341.GA28776@ixion.tartarus.org> References: <1083706269.26125.1150.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1083706269.26125.1150.camel@imladris.demon.co.uk> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 10:31:09PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > Has anyone considered the possibility of emulating libc, rather than > emulating system calls? That's what em86 used to do for emulating i386 > code on Alpha -- rather than letting it run a 'real' non-native libc > and then emulating only syscalls. I did this with my own i386-on-ppc emulator. It's a larger and less well documented ABI, and can get quite messy. OTOH, most of the functions are easy and could be generated. > I appreciate that syscalls are a far more stable ABI to be emulating, > and there are far fewer structures to convert -- but wouldn't it be > faster to emulate the library itself? Probably, but I'd be interested to see some profiling data showing how much time is actually spent emulating the libc etc. first. > It's cute that I have i386 acroread running in a Mozilla window > through mozplugger. Ooh, I'll have to look into that. Maybe I can have Flash on Linux/PPC after all... > It'd be cuter if I could get Mozilla plugins running in the _same_ > process, rather than in a separate process. You'd need to know the prototypes of all the functions you're calling ahead of time, though... Chris