Binary translation: static, dynamic, retargetable? (original) (raw)

Abstract

The porting of software to newer and faster machines using static binary translation techniques has proved successful to a large extent. Current binary translators are static in nature and require a runtime environment to successfully support the execution of the translated programs on the new machine. On the other hand, dynamic binary translation has not been considered as an alternative to static translation { we argue that these translators can achieve at least the same performance as static translators but will require a simpler runtime environment.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (32)

  1. F. Alvaro. System maintenance in Western Australia: is it a problem for management concern? Honours thesis, Curtin University, 1992.
  2. K. Andrews and D. Sand. Migrating a CISC com- puter family onto RISC via object code translation. In Proceedings ASPLOS V, pages 213{222, Oct. 1992.
  3. AT&T. Flashport. http://www.att.com/ FlashPort/, 1994. AT&T Bell Labs.
  4. R. Bedichek. Some e cient architecture simulation techniques. In Proceedings Winter USENIX Confer- ence, pages 53{63, 1990.
  5. A. Bergh, K. Keilman, D. Magenheimer, and J. Miller. HP3000 emulation on HP precision architecture com- puters. Hewlett-Packard Journal, pages 87 { 89, Dec. 1987.
  6. L. Chia. Binary emulation. Master's thesis, Purdue University, Department of Electrical Engineering, May 1995.
  7. C. Cifuentes and K. Gough. Decompilation of bi- nary programs. Software { Practice and Experience, 25(7):811{829, July 1995.
  8. B. Cmelik and D. Keppel. Shade: A fast instruction- set simulator for execution pro ling. In Proceedings ACM SIGMETRICS Conference on Measurement and modeling of Computer Systems, 1994.
  9. B. Cogswell and Z. Segall. Timing insensitive binary- to-binary migration across multiprocessor architec- tures. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Paral- lel and Distributed Real-Time Systems, pages 193{194, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, Apr. 1995. IEEE Computer Society Press.
  10. A. Corporation. Macintosh application environment. http://www.mae.apple.com/, 1994.
  11. Digital. OM and ATOM. http://www.research.digital.com/wrl/projects/om/ om.html, 1994. Digital Western Research Labs. 12] Digital. Freeport express. http://www.novalink.com/ freeport-express, 1995.
  12. B. Drake. Interactive disassembler for SPARC V8 bi- naries. Honours's thesis, University of Tasmania, De- partment of Computer Science, Nov. 1995.
  13. A. Eustace and A. Srivastava. ATOM a exible inter- face for building high performance program analysis tools. In Proceedings USENIX Technical Conference, pages 303{314, Jan. 1995. Also as Digital Western Re- search Laboratory Technical Note TN-44, July 1994.
  14. M. Fern andez. Simple and e ective link-time opti- mization of modula-3 programs. In SIGPLAN Con- ference on Programming Languages, Design and Im- plementation, pages 103{115, June 1995.
  15. U. Holzle. Adaptive Optimization for SELF: Reconcil- ing High Performance with Exploratory Programming. PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Department of Computer Science, Mar. 1995.
  16. R. Horspool and N. Marovac. An approach to the problem of detranslation of computer programs. The Computer Journal, 23(3):223{229, 1979.
  17. IEEE. IEEE Standard 1219-1993 for Software Main- tenance. IEEE, 1993.
  18. S. Johnson. Postloading for fun and pro t. In Pro- ceedings Winter USENIX Conference, pages 325{330, 1990.
  19. J. Larus and T. Ball. Rewriting executable les to measure program behavior. Software { Practice and Experience, 24(2):197{218, Feb. 1994.
  20. J. Larus and E. Schnarr. EEL: Machine-independent executable editing. In SIGPLAN Conference on Pro- gramming Languages, Design and Implementation, pages 291{300, June 1995.
  21. B. Lientz and E. Swanson. Software Mainte- nance Management. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mas- sachusetts, 1980.
  22. C. May. MIMIC: A fast System/370 simulator. In Proceedings SIGPLAN'87 Symposium on Interpreters and Interpretive Techniques, pages 1{13, June 1987.
  23. N. Ramsey and M. Fern andez. New Jer- sey Machine-Code Toolkit Reference Man- ual, version 0.1a edition, Nov. 1994. URL ftp://ftp.cs.princeton.edu/reports/1994/471.ps.Z.
  24. N. Ramsey and M. Fern andez. The New Jersey machine-code toolkit. In Proceedings of the 1995 USENIX Technical Conference, pages 289{302, Jan. 1995.
  25. N. Ramsey and D. Hanson. A retargetable debugger. In Proceedings Programming Languages, Design and Implementation, pages 22{31, June 1992.
  26. G. Silberman and K. Ebcioglu. An architectural framework for supporting heterogeneous instruction- set architectures. Computer, pages 39{56, June 1993.
  27. R. Sites, A. Cherno , M. Kirk, M. Marks, and S. Robinson. Binary translation. Commun. ACM, 36(2):69{81, Feb. 1993.
  28. R. Stallman. Using and Porting GNU CC, version 2.5 edition, Oct. 1993.
  29. SunSoft. Personal computer integration prod- ucts. http://www.sun.com/sunsoft/Products/PC- Integration-products/, 1994.
  30. T. Then. Binary translation with optimizations. Mas- ter's thesis, Purdue University, Department of Electri- cal Engineering, Dec. 1995.
  31. T. Thompson. An Alpha in PC clothing. Byte, pages 195{196, Feb. 1996.
  32. R. Wahbe, S. Lucco, and S. Graham. Adaptable bi- nary programs. Technical Report CMU-CS-94-137, Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Sci- ence, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, Apr. 1994.