> > Yet, DEC seems to have done it quite successfully, with their MIPS ->
> > Alpha converter, and their new x86 -> Alpha converter (for NT).  In
> > my experience, the MIPS/DECstation -> Alpha converter worked very
> > well (never used the other one).  How is that they were able to be so
> > successful with binary conversion?
>
> They didn't do it in the form described above.  Most likely the output
> contains a verbatim copy of the entire input text segment, just in case
> something there is used as literal data instead of getting executed.

der Mouse is absolutely correct.  DEC didn't create a simple binary  
translator.  In fact, BYTE 10/96 has an article titled "Alpha Learns to Do  
Windows" in their Eval section.  Here's the scoop:
Digital's FX!32 looks at the instructions used, and rewrites some of them  
into native Alpha code and subsequently saving them in a seperate (native)  
DLL. Regular system calls are directed to a native Alpha libarary.  FX!23 is  
a combination of translation and interpretation, utilizing heuristics to  
generate a specific profile of an application which is then in turn used to  
iteratively (with each run of the application) optimize the "resulting" code.  
 The test results show that within the first three runs most of the  
optimization is done, and after that (as IMHO is to be expected) performance  
gains taper off.  On a sidenote, only Win32 apps are translated by FX!32,  
you'll still need Insignia's SoftWindows for Win16 apps; IMHO, not spending  
the money on Win32 apps is probably pretty braindead anyway, so, that's not  
really an issue in this particular focus.

Anyway, just thought I'd clear that up ;)

Regards,
Chris