09-Dec-2021 01:09 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Files] New Amithlon 1.29 update availableANN.lu
Posted on 11-Mar-2004 20:42 GMT by top (Edited on 2004-03-12 18:05:13 GMT by Christophe Decanini)73 comments
View flat
View list
the New update for Amithlon to run AmigaOS3.9 under PC hardware via Linux Drivers :

Amithlon Kernel compatible Linux PCI drivers : PC network chipsets, PC sound chipsets

Added new version of the XCat Utility (Thanks to Bernd Meyer)

FIX: Somehow the name of the installed amithlon1_com.device was wrong!

Available for download in Aminet link file: Amithlon 1.29 update

Author: geit@gmx.de (Guido Mersmann)

Author: amithlon@amithlon.net (Bernd Meyer)
and
Author: support@vmc.de (Harald Frank, VMC)
Author: bvernoux@wanadoo.fr (Benjamin Vernoux, Titan)
List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1takemehomegrandmaRegistered user11-Mar-2004 20:20 GMT
Comment 2brotheris11-Mar-2004 20:36 GMT
Comment 3takemehomegrandmaRegistered user11-Mar-2004 20:48 GMT
Comment 4brotheris11-Mar-2004 20:55 GMT
Comment 5takemehomegrandmaRegistered user11-Mar-2004 21:38 GMT
Comment 6brotheris11-Mar-2004 22:07 GMT
Comment 7Anonymous11-Mar-2004 22:09 GMT
Comment 8Anonymous11-Mar-2004 22:28 GMT
Comment 9red vs blue11-Mar-2004 22:40 GMT
Comment 10anon11-Mar-2004 22:55 GMT
Comment 11Megol11-Mar-2004 23:42 GMT
Comment 12Bla_head12-Mar-2004 02:35 GMT
Comment 13Kjetil12-Mar-2004 06:45 GMT
Comment 14Don CoxRegistered user12-Mar-2004 07:18 GMT
Comment 15Don CoxRegistered user12-Mar-2004 07:21 GMT
Comment 16Ole-Egil12-Mar-2004 08:00 GMT
Comment 17code12-Mar-2004 08:06 GMT
Comment 18brotheris12-Mar-2004 08:16 GMT
Comment 19froggie12-Mar-2004 08:21 GMT
Comment 20Crumb // AATRegistered user12-Mar-2004 08:39 GMT
Comment 21top12-Mar-2004 08:47 GMT
Comment 22Kjetil12-Mar-2004 09:04 GMT
Comment 23ujb12-Mar-2004 09:10 GMT
Comment 24Kjetil12-Mar-2004 09:14 GMT
Comment 25Kjetil12-Mar-2004 09:15 GMT
Comment 26Kjetil12-Mar-2004 09:24 GMT
Comment 27Anonymous12-Mar-2004 09:28 GMT
Comment 28Bla_head12-Mar-2004 09:38 GMT
Comment 29Bla_head12-Mar-2004 09:39 GMT
Comment 30brotheris12-Mar-2004 09:41 GMT
Comment 31Anonymous12-Mar-2004 10:36 GMT
Comment 32Kryler12-Mar-2004 10:49 GMT
Comment 33miksuh12-Mar-2004 11:34 GMT
Comment 34miksuh12-Mar-2004 11:40 GMT
Comment 35miksuh12-Mar-2004 11:41 GMT
Comment 36Martin Blom12-Mar-2004 11:49 GMT
Comment 37Kjetil12-Mar-2004 12:18 GMT
Comment 38brotheris12-Mar-2004 12:30 GMT
Comment 39miksuh12-Mar-2004 12:31 GMT
Comment 40itix12-Mar-2004 12:33 GMT
Comment 41Bernie MeyerRegistered user12-Mar-2004 13:31 GMT
Comment 42Kronos12-Mar-2004 13:33 GMT
New Amithlon 1.29 update available : Comment 43 of 73ANN.lu
Posted by Bernie Meyer on 12-Mar-2004 13:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (Kjetil):
The whole "the x86 needs to swap byte order when emulating 68k" thing is pretty much a non-issue.When Intel introduced the 486, they gave it the "bswap" instruction, which will do just what's needed (for longwords; For shorts, you use a rotate, and bytes don't need swapping). On any modern x86, that instruction is blindingly fast, and thanks to the whole out-of-order execution, usually happens while the processor is waiting for something else, anyway.Anyone who ever looked closely at the JIT compiler will have seen that there are a bunch of ways in which operations on registers are delayed, just in case they can be optimized away. For example, adding a constant offset to a register will not necessarily produce any "add" in x86 code; The offset is just remembered, and only once it really needs doing is the "add" done.For a while, I toyed with the idea to have another such state which stored for any x86 register whether it contained its real value, or the byte-swapped version of it --- to avoid doing double-swaps if they weren't necessary. Then I went and hacked things so that instead of one bswap, 3 were output each time --- and the change in speed was negligible. So getting rid of even *all* bswap would also result in negligible speedup.This, of course, is only true for the integer part. In the FPU code, the whole byte-swapping really sucks. A large part of that is due to the fact that the x87 FPU sucks. If I were to do the whole thing over again today, I'd use SSE2 for the FPU, ignore the x87 crap, and make a modern XP or P4 the minimum requirement...
Jump...
#44 Anonymous #59 hammer
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 44Anonymous12-Mar-2004 14:10 GMT
Comment 45Bernie MeyerRegistered user12-Mar-2004 14:29 GMT
Comment 46Crumb // AATRegistered user12-Mar-2004 14:38 GMT
Comment 47T_Bone12-Mar-2004 17:02 GMT
Comment 48Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user12-Mar-2004 17:49 GMT
Comment 49Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user12-Mar-2004 17:50 GMT
Comment 50Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user12-Mar-2004 18:10 GMT
Comment 51itix12-Mar-2004 22:28 GMT
Comment 52Bernie MeyerRegistered user13-Mar-2004 03:31 GMT
Comment 53Bernie MeyerRegistered user13-Mar-2004 03:33 GMT
Comment 54Jupp313-Mar-2004 05:58 GMT
Comment 55Don CoxRegistered user13-Mar-2004 06:05 GMT
Comment 56Don CoxRegistered user13-Mar-2004 06:07 GMT
Comment 57Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user13-Mar-2004 08:11 GMT
Comment 58Fabio AlemagnaRegistered user13-Mar-2004 08:12 GMT
Comment 59hammer13-Mar-2004 08:35 GMT
Comment 60ikirRegistered user13-Mar-2004 09:45 GMT
Comment 61Megol13-Mar-2004 20:44 GMT
Comment 62Megol13-Mar-2004 21:52 GMT
Comment 63Kjetil13-Mar-2004 22:00 GMT
Comment 64Lost souls13-Mar-2004 23:47 GMT
Comment 65Kjetil14-Mar-2004 02:00 GMT
Comment 66Kjetil14-Mar-2004 02:26 GMT
Comment 67Crumb // AATRegistered user15-Mar-2004 08:54 GMT
Comment 68Crumb // AATRegistered user15-Mar-2004 15:10 GMT
Comment 69Kjetil15-Mar-2004 16:27 GMT
Comment 70Crumb // AATRegistered user15-Mar-2004 16:49 GMT
Comment 71Kjetil15-Mar-2004 17:47 GMT
Comment 72Kjetil15-Mar-2004 18:04 GMT
Comment 73Kjetil15-Mar-2004 18:19 GMT
Back to Top