On 2:59 PM, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 10/01/10 23:56, BartC wrote:
"Pascal J. Bourguignon"<p...@informatimago.com> wrote in message
news:87zkuyjawh....@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com...
"BartC"<b...@freeuk.com> writes:
"Pascal J. Bourguignon"<p...@informatimago.com> wrote in message
When Intel will realize that 99% of its users are running VM
Which one?
Any implementation of a controlled environment is a virtual machine.
Sometimes it is explicitely defined, such as in clisp, parot or jvm, but
more often it is implicit, such as in sbcl, or worse, developed in an
ad-hoc way in applications (eg. written in C++).
But if you had to implement a VM directly in hardware, which one (of the
several varieties) would you choose?
Virtual Machine in Hardware... isn't that a contradiction?
Intel's processors aren't just hardware, they already have lots of
microcode, as has nearly every machine built in the last 40 years or
so. However, the hardware is heavily biased towards the "Intel x86
instruction" architecture. But there are at least 3 vm's already in the
Pentium processor: one emulates the 8086 PC model, real mode, another
is 32bit, and the third is 64 bit.
Years ago, somebody microcoded the UCSD p machine, which is probably the
logical forerunner to the byte code of both the jvm and the Python byte
code architecture. The machine was pretty quick, but it wasn't a
commercial success, perhaps in part because of thermal problems, but
primarily because it 'wasn't compatible."
DaveA
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
