64-bit WinUAE?

26 June 2009, 08:21

Yeah, I know there is a thread with the exact same name on here, but the last comment from Toni is about 4 years old. I guess there has been no update on it in all that time. My thoughts on it.

- no JIT. Is it too complicated to do?

- No catweasel, ipf-images. I suppose that no one has bothered to do said libraries is because there is no 64 bit version of winuae, I am sure that once there is that will be powerful motivation to update

Toni Wilen · 26 June 2009, 11:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by little

Yeah, I know there is a thread with the exact same name on here, but the last comment from Toni is about 4 years old. I guess there has been no update on it in all that time. My thoughts on it.

- no JIT. Is it too complicated to do?

- No catweasel, ipf-images. I suppose that no one has bothered to do said libraries is because there is no 64 bit version of winuae, I am sure that once there is that will be powerful motivation to update

JIT is still the only problem. Basilisk II has 64-bit 680x0 JIT but afaik it does not have illegal access handler which is 100% required in Amiga emulation.

JIT is a mess of C and x86 assembly. I don't want to touch it..

FOL · 26 June 2009, 11:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toni Wilen

JIT is still the only problem. Basilisk II has 64-bit 680x0 JIT but afaik it does not have illegal access handler which is 100% required in Amiga emulation.

JIT is a mess of C and x86 assembly. I don't want to touch it..

Do we really need a 64BIT Winuae.
The current 32BIT works great, even on a 64BIT machine. I have'nt had any problems so far with what I use Winuae for on a daily basis.

Shoonay · 26 June 2009, 11:13

Correction, on a x86_x64 machine, and i'm sure a whole lot of 5 people in the world that have a truly 64bit machines miss this proggie...

Toni Wilen · 26 June 2009, 11:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by FOL

Do we really need a 64BIT Winuae.

No but thats not the point.

64-bit version can be faster (more registers, larger registers), also 2G Fast RAM is possible with 64-bit version. Not very useful reasons but good enough reasons for me!

FOL · 26 June 2009, 11:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toni Wilen

No but thats not the point.

64-bit version can be faster (more registers, larger registers), also 2G Fast RAM is possible with 64-bit version. Not very useful reasons but good enough reasons for me!

lol, fair enough,

.

TCD · 26 June 2009, 11:21

I always thought 1.5 GB was already way too much...

It's a pity JIT is such a mess and thus the only reason that prevents a 64 bit version.

Toni Wilen · 26 June 2009, 11:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCyberDruid

I always thought 1.5 GB was already way too much...

It's a pity JIT is such a mess and thus the only reason that prevents a 64 bit version.

It may not be a mess if you remember most common x86 opcodes in hex

(I don't and I don't want to)

Rabbit80 · 26 June 2009, 11:54

Is JIT really necessary on modern 64-bit processors? Most games dont work with it anyway!

Ian · 26 June 2009, 14:59

How about a 64bit version without jit

I personally never use it so wouldn't miss it if it wasn't there.

26 June 2009, 18:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toni Wilen

JIT is a mess of C and x86 assembly.

Mhh, from what I understand any x86 assembly compilation is done by NASM, that on it's frontpage states "NASM has been updated to support the full x86-64 architecture extension, and is fully supported since NASM 2.00.". From the directories date-stamps it seems that 2.00 was released on 28-Nov-2007. So, I suppose the same assembly code can now be automatically compiled for x86 and x86-64 targets.

Toni Wilen · 26 June 2009, 20:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by little

Mhh, from what I understand any x86 assembly compilation is done by NASM, that on it's frontpage states "NASM has been updated to support the full x86-64 architecture extension, and is fully supported since NASM 2.00.". From the directories date-stamps it seems that 2.00 was released on 28-Nov-2007. So, I suppose the same assembly code can now be automatically compiled for x86 and x86-64 targets.

I meant it has x86 instruction opcodes in hexadecimal mixed with C code (where JIT generates x86 code dynamically). Assembler won't help here.

Need to understand both 680x0 and x86 (and x64 too..) perfectly to be able to understand JIT completely..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian

How about a 64bit version without jit

I personally never use it so wouldn't miss it if it wasn't there.

No. Most users would instantly complain because it runs so slowly..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rabbit80

Is JIT really necessary on modern 64-bit processors? Most games dont work with it anyway!

This isn't about games.

Ed Cruse · 27 June 2009, 01:01

Without JIT I would instantly complain. As far as I'm concerned my emulated Amiga can't be to fast. Some of the things I do are so slow on a 50 Mhz 68060 that they are not feasable. They are however feasable on my emulated Amiga.

Predabot · 27 June 2009, 01:53

Man, Toni... if you can do this... I WILL WORSHIP THE GROUND WHERE YOU STAND, LIKE A GOD!! 0_0

64-bit i the future!

Every 64-bit, or partially 64-bit program that I run works noticeably faster than their 32-bit contemporaries, on my Vista 64. Ever since MameUI became 64-bit it runs faster and smoother than ever!

You say it's not about games... well, I think it part it actually is. Because games like Breathless will undoubtedly run better, on awesomely tricked out A1200's that can then be simulated.

Come on, can't some of us help Toni out somehow?? Is there anyone that knows someone with the technical knowledge required for x86 Opcodes?? Maybe we can pay that guy, whoever he might be, to help Toni out.

Seriously, it could work.

PS: I'm one of those guys that don't use JIT either. Unless JIT = the Fastest Possible Emulation speed option, in the CPU options section.

Rabbit80 · 27 June 2009, 01:59

Is it possible to have a 32 bit fallback mode in case JIT is enabled?

gilgamesh · 27 June 2009, 09:47

Can't Toni swap in some ready made JIT-compiler, like llvm? Of course, that would add another layer of indirection, but it's optimization techniques might outweigh that. The result would be mostly platform independent.

MazinKaesar · 28 June 2009, 20:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toni Wilen

JIT is a mess of C and x86 assembly. I don't want to touch it..

Tony trying to port JIT on x64 ->

gilgamesh · 31 October 2009, 19:14

Basilisk II JIT claims to have x86 and x86_64 as targets (link).

alexh · 31 October 2009, 19:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilgamesh

Basilisk II JIT claims to have x86 and x86_64 as targets (link).

Erm read above..

http://eab.abime.net/showpost.php?p=565109&postcount=2

gilgamesh · 31 October 2009, 20:12

Oh, ehm

When reading "development version" I felt the compelling need to post it somewhere.

26 June 2009, 08:21	#1
little Posts: n/a	64-bit WinUAE? Yeah, I know there is a thread with the exact same name on here, but the last comment from Toni is about 4 years old. I guess there has been no update on it in all that time. My thoughts on it. - no JIT. Is it too complicated to do? - No catweasel, ipf-images. I suppose that no one has bothered to do said libraries is because there is no 64 bit version of winuae, I am sure that once there is that will be powerful motivation to update

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
64 bit winuae and JIT	pjhutch	support.WinUAE	1	25 September 2011 01:29
Winuae on Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit ?	weasel_ch	support.WinUAE	6	02 September 2011 18:07
REQ: 17-Bit Artwork 2 (1988-04)(17-Bit Software)	Sea7	request.Demos	5	13 May 2011 01:07
8 bit to optimized 6 bit palette histogram improvements needed	NovaCoder	Coders. General	0	14 April 2011 02:13
64-bit WinUAE?	Jim	request.UAE Wishlist	31	13 April 2006 15:24

26 June 2009, 11:13	#4
Shoonay Global Caturator Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Porando Age: 43 Posts: 6,105	Correction, on a x86_x64 machine, and i'm sure a whole lot of 5 people in the world that have a truly 64bit machines miss this proggie...

26 June 2009, 11:21	#7
TCD HOL/FTP busy bee Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Germany Age: 46 Posts: 31,535	I always thought 1.5 GB was already way too much... It's a pity JIT is such a mess and thus the only reason that prevents a 64 bit version.

26 June 2009, 11:54	#9
Rabbit80 Its hard being famous! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Gateway to the dales, UK Age: 43 Posts: 633	Is JIT really necessary on modern 64-bit processors? Most games dont work with it anyway!

26 June 2009, 14:59	#10
Ian Global Moderator Join Date: May 2001 Location: Derby, UK Age: 46 Posts: 2,287	How about a 64bit version without jit I personally never use it so wouldn't miss it if it wasn't there.

27 June 2009, 01:01	#13
Ed Cruse Registered User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Las Cruces, USA Age: 71 Posts: 351	Without JIT I would instantly complain. As far as I'm concerned my emulated Amiga can't be to fast. Some of the things I do are so slow on a 50 Mhz 68060 that they are not feasable. They are however feasable on my emulated Amiga.

27 June 2009, 01:53	#14
Predabot Registered User Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Swedun' Posts: 397	Man, Toni... if you can do this... I WILL WORSHIP THE GROUND WHERE YOU STAND, LIKE A GOD!! 0_0 64-bit i the future! Every 64-bit, or partially 64-bit program that I run works noticeably faster than their 32-bit contemporaries, on my Vista 64. Ever since MameUI became 64-bit it runs faster and smoother than ever! You say it's not about games... well, I think it part it actually is. Because games like Breathless will undoubtedly run better, on awesomely tricked out A1200's that can then be simulated. Come on, can't some of us help Toni out somehow?? Is there anyone that knows someone with the technical knowledge required for x86 Opcodes?? Maybe we can pay that guy, whoever he might be, to help Toni out. Seriously, it could work. PS: I'm one of those guys that don't use JIT either. Unless JIT = the Fastest Possible Emulation speed option, in the CPU options section.

27 June 2009, 01:59	#15
Rabbit80 Its hard being famous! Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Gateway to the dales, UK Age: 43 Posts: 633	Is it possible to have a 32 bit fallback mode in case JIT is enabled?

27 June 2009, 09:47	#16
gilgamesh Linux snob Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Monkey Island Posts: 997	Can't Toni swap in some ready made JIT-compiler, like llvm? Of course, that would add another layer of indirection, but it's optimization techniques might outweigh that. The result would be mostly platform independent.

31 October 2009, 19:14	#18
gilgamesh Linux snob Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Monkey Island Posts: 997	Basilisk II JIT claims to have x86 and x86_64 as targets (link).

31 October 2009, 20:12	#20
gilgamesh Linux snob Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Monkey Island Posts: 997	Oh, ehm When reading "development version" I felt the compelling need to post it somewhere.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)