If I understand the filing, I believe that the difference is that both
FLEX-ES and Hercules are in fact "instruction simulators", whereas PSI was
producing an "instruction emulator".
IBM alleges that what PSI is doing is translating executable object code for
zSeries into executable object code for Itanium. That translation is what
is in violation of IBM's patents and licensing agreements.
The differences between the two are obscure to non-technical types, but
should be easily understandable to anyone having a background in hardware
architecture.
Maybe so, but although I am a software developer I have a good
understanding of the hardware platforms, and I don't quite understand
the distinction between simulator and emulator, in this context.
Are you saying that Flex/Hercules calls simulation routines for each
zSeries instruction, while the PSI does the same except that it makes
use of Itanium instructions which are similar? I can't believe your
statement that PSI is translating object code. That would mean that
every piece of code loaded, from NUC, to LPA, to LINKLIB, to user
libraries, would have to be translated in memory to Itanium-compatible
code. This would make debugging impossible. What would show up in a dump?
Did I misinterpret your statement?
--
Bruce A. Black
Senior Software Developer for FDR
Innovation Data Processing 973-890-7300
personal: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sales info: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tech support: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: www.innovationdp.fdr.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
