Re: Do we really need virtual machines?

Tobias Bergmann <tobias@berg.dichter.de>
22 Dec 2004 01:05:59 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[12 earlier articles]
Re: Do we really need virtual machines? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2004-10-09)
Re: Do we really need virtual machines? david.boyle@ed.tadpole.com (2004-10-12)
Re: Do we really need virtual machines? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2004-10-17)
Re: Do we really need virtual machines? Colin_Paul_Gloster@ACM.org (Paul Colin Gloster) (2004-10-21)
Re: Do we really need virtual machines? postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us (Paul Robinson) (2004-12-17)
Re: Do we really need virtual machines? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2004-12-19)
Re: Do we really need virtual machines? tobias@berg.dichter.de (Tobias Bergmann) (2004-12-22)
Re: Do we really need virtual machines? vbdis@aol.com (2004-12-23)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Tobias Bergmann <tobias@berg.dichter.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 22 Dec 2004 01:05:59 -0500
Organization: Fakultaet Informatik, Universitaet Stuttgart, Germany
References: 04-10-013 04-12-081
Keywords: VM, GCC
Posted-Date: 22 Dec 2004 01:05:59 EST

Paul Robinson wrote:
> Nicola Musatti wrote:
>>After all, isn't gcc the most ported virtual machine of all?
> I don't think GCC would qualify as a virtual machine as I think code
> is generated to run natively, not to be interpreted.


What about attaching GCC's intermediate representation to the executable
file? This will allow dynamic recompilation if
a) the assigned cache size varies during operation
b) the ratio of core speed to memory speed changes
c) the cache associativity changes


This recompilation can be done on another core or even processor and
will not decrease speed of the current executable.


If the results of this recompilations are attached as well then it only
has to be done once.


Objections?


bis besser,
Tobias


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.