|CISC to RISC translator? Mikael.Larsson@lu.erisoft.se (1994-08-16)|
|Re: CISC to RISC translator? roedy@BIX.com (1994-08-18)|
|Re: CISC to RISC translator? firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-08-18)|
|Re: CISC to RISC translator? email@example.com (1994-08-18)|
|Re: CISC to RISC translator? firstname.lastname@example.org (1994-08-19)|
|Re: CISC to RISC translator? email@example.com (1994-08-24)|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Warren Stevens)|
|Keywords:||architecture, translator, comment|
|Date:||Wed, 24 Aug 1994 00:10:44 GMT|
What you say is quite true -- precompiling CISC code to RISC is very
efficient (why do it more than once?). From what I understand, however,
by doing so the company that writes the translater opens itself to a whole
host of legal issues: copyright infringement, patent violations, etc. etc.
My source for this information was a recent Byte article where they
dissected the PowerMac and looked at it's hardware and emulation
My opinions are my own. I do not in any way speak for Microsoft.
[Although it's certainly possible to argue the legality of object
code translation under various scenarios, this isn't the place to do it.
Legal arguments belong in misc.legal.*, please. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.