> > MAME's DRC is caching, meaning the translation pass to x86/x64 binary code runs > once > > per instance of emulated (MIPS/PowerPC/SH-2) code and you therefore get the > run-time > > performance of a static recompiler without all of the problems. (And since it's > > dynamic, it can handle the self-modifying code that occurs somewhat frequently in > > e.g. ST-V games programmed by Success). > > > That's great, you already can handle the most difficult part - the stuff that is > 'hard to know' at compile time, and as such those platforms seem already suitable for > a nice hybrid optimisation, or perhaps something like Java virtual machine does with > its 'intermediate byte-code'. > > Possibly most of the game ROMs could be pre-processed to some intermediate > 'byte-code', and we could leave 'uncertain branching' and 'self-modifying code' parts > to be done by via DRC... but then, after we play the game long enough we would > eventually have the WHOLE game traversed and statically recompiled somewhere in the > computer memory, and then all we need is to dump it all to a file, right?
Why bother, the ROMs are already in a form of "byte code"
Index 
Flat 
Re: Emulator: Interpreter vs. Compiler?
Reply
Re: It's called "static recompiler"
