[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: doscmd status?
On Dec 27, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> Yes, but DOSBox is effectively doing a runtime interpretation of the x86
> real mode. It is still going to be slower / more resource wasting than
> qemu's dynamic translation (if the code behaves responanable) and you
> get full support for protected mode for free.
While I don't actually know anything about the implementation details, my
understanding was that DOSBox's "core=dynamic" option
used the same "dynamic translation" that you're talking about.
"dynamic The program instructions are, in blocks, translated to host processor
instructions that execute directly. See also
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-in-time_compilation>. In the most cases this
approach is more efficent than interpretation, except for programs that employ
massive self-modifying code. This option is not present on all host platforms."
Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: khym%azeotrope.org@localhost | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan | dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
Dahan: Hani G Y+C 34 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++
Main Index |
Thread Index |