[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Universal Processor (was Re: [oc] x86 IP Core)
like Rudi said, it is a nice idea. You could translate probably the 68k and
some others, but there are even more interesting architectures that people
are interested. Attempting to translate these would result in legal actions.
I'm not going to mention these others architectures and what legal actions
mean, I'm sure you know what I mean.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Dalton" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2003 6:17 AM
Subject: Universal Processor (was Re: [oc] x86 IP Core)
> I'm not aware of one (I'll keep an eye out), but your
> request has given me an idea for a core. I don't
> think I will have time to work on this idea, but if anyone
> thinks it is a good idea, they are free to develop
> Basically, the idea can be described as a hardware
> version of 'code morphing' technology. Code morphing
> processors on the fly translate processor instructions
> (such as x86, 68000, etc) into a 'native' format which
> is then executed. The 'translation' step is invisible
> to the outside world, so a program runs just as is it
> were running on an 'x86', 68000 or whatever.
> What if we had a processor that executed a versatile
> 'native' instruction set. Prossibly this processor
> would be based on the OpenRisc?
> In conjunction with this proessor, we design a bunch
> of 'translators' which sit between the processor and
> program memory, x86 instructions might go into
> this block and OpenRisc instruction come out. These
> OpenRisc instructions would then be executed. In this way,
> the OpenRisc would act like an x86. Translators could also
> be designed for the 68000, Z80, ..., name your processor.
> What if we generalised this concept and wrote a 'translator
> compiler'? This would be a program that abstracts the
> methods used to write a translator. Its input is a specification
> of the instruction set to be 'traslated' (maybe use the same
> language which is used to describe s processor to gcc?).
> Its output is the VHDL, verilog or RTL for a translator to
> translate instruction set 'X' to OpenRisc.
> Steps to design/build an arbitrary processor would now
> 1) Write a gcc machine description (.md) file for a processor.
> 2) Automatically generate HDL for a translator/OpenRisc combination
> (using the generator described above)
> 3) Synthesise the resulting HDL files.
> Perhaps this idea has already been done, but if not, any takers
> to do it?
> This project would 'leverage' the opencores process as existing
> processor descriptions could be reused each time a 'new'
> processor is to be designed.
> John Dalton
> To unsubscribe from cores mailing list please visit
To unsubscribe from cores mailing list please visit http://www.opencores.org/mailinglists.shtml