Hi Peter, On May 26, 2013 12:26 PM, "Peter Maydell" <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 26 May 2013 06:40, Lior Vernia <liorv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry, right after I wrote the message it occured to me I should have > > mentioned that I was talking about qemu-system, either x86 or i386. At > > the moment I just ran the limbo app on a Galaxy SIII with various > > images, just to see the capabilities, and was disappointed. Limbo > > seems to run v1.1.0. > > > I wanted to add that I've been reading about this Russian startup > > that's looking to emulate x86 on ARM at 40% of native speed using > > dynamic binary translation (as far as I gather): > > http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2012/10/04/x86-on-arm/1 > > So this should be possible. And it can't be very much unlike QEMU, can it? > > That article suggests they're doing application-level translation, > not system-level emulation. If you: > * design your emulation from scratch with that use case in mind > (qemu is system emulation first with app-level as a secondary case) > * are happy to have just one guest and one target architecture > (this is actually mostly useful in that it reduces the set of things > you have to test; it also lets you take shortcuts in corner cases > for your initial implementation) > * put more concentrated effort into emulation performance than QEMU > > then you should be able to do better than qemu does currently. > You'd probably end up with something like Transitive's QuickTransit/ > Rosetta.
What about no to the first bullet but yes to the second (just x86 on ARM)? Any room for significant improvement in that case, starting from the foundations of QEMU? > > thanks > -- PMM
