From markfptuson at gmail.com Sun Sep 26 02:29:01 2010 From: markfptuson at gmail.com (Mark Tuson) Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 17:29:01 +0100 Subject: [pups] PDP-11 (SIMH), Seventh Edition UNIX Message-ID: <4C9E234D.4020705@gmail.com> Hi everyone, this is my first message, after being on the mailing list for the best part of three years :) I've a couple of [hopefully] simple questions about running Seventh Edition UNIX on SIMH. The first question is: how can I get the C compiler to work properly? When I've tried to compile programs, I get 'cannot create temp' - here's a full list of what's on the screen: @boot New Boot, known devices are hp ht rk rl rp tm vt : rl(0,0)rl2unix mem = 177856 # Thu Sep 22 07:50:47 EDT 1988 login: mark $ ed a main() { printf(" Hello.\n"); return; } . w a.c 46 q $ cc a.c cc: cannot create temp $ Also, how can I get the backspace key to erase? I've done /stty erase '^H'/ but I have to actually type +H to erase. The other thing I want to ask about is: can I compile SIMH on DOS, so it doesn't display any messages except those of the simulated software, and so it ignores ^E? I'm asking because I want v7 on an ancient laptop I've got lying around - a 486 with 24M of core. v7x86 won't work on it, and I don't really fancy putting Slack 3 back on it - if I'm going to go outdated, I might as well go the whole hog and go /really/ outdated. Though I might consider 2.11BSD, if that'll work on a machine with 24M of core, and if the escapes will display properly, because [24;1H[?1h=[;H[2J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~[H is a little bit difficult to work with when I'm wanting to edit source code. Thanks very much. Mark Tuson. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From frank at wortner.com Wed Sep 29 11:03:27 2010 From: frank at wortner.com (Frank Wortner) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 21:03:27 -0400 Subject: [pups] PDP-11 (SIMH), Seventh Edition UNIX In-Reply-To: <4C9E234D.4020705@gmail.com> References: <4C9E234D.4020705@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Mark Tuson wrote: > The first question is: how can I get the C compiler to work properly? When > I've tried to compile programs, I get 'cannot create temp' > Try checking to see if there is any disk space left on the root RL device. It may be full -- these were tiny by today's standards -- disk drives. 10 Mb, if I recall correctly. The other possibility is that the /tmp directory has the wron permission. It should be read/write to all (drwxrwxrwx). If not, try running chmod 0777 /tmp as root, then try compiling again. > > Also, how can I get the backspace key to erase? I've done *stty erase '^H' > * but I have to actually type +H to erase. > > The other thing I want to ask about is: can I compile SIMH on DOS, so it > doesn't display any messages except those of the simulated software, and so > it ignores ^E? > You can fix the control E problem by running the command SET CONSOLE WRU char ... where char is the charcter you wish to use. (WRU stands for "where are you" according to the SIMH documentation http://simh.trailing-edge.com/pdf/simh_doc.pdf). > I'm asking because I want v7 on an ancient laptop I've got lying around - a > 486 with 24M of core. v7x86 won't work on it, and I don't really fancy > putting Slack 3 back on it - if I'm going to go outdated, I might as well go > the whole hog and go *really* outdated. > > Though I might consider 2.11BSD, if that'll work on a machine with 24M of > core, and if the escapes will display properly, because > The biggest PDP-11 had 4 Mb of memory, so you certainly won't be limited there. I suspect that if you run nothing else,on the machine you will get fair perfomance on the emulated PDP-11. 2.11 BSD should run. As far as your other terminal problems, you probably just need an appropriate setting for the TERM environment variable to get vi to work. Usually TERM=vt100 works, but your mileage may vary. Real men use ed, though! [?] I always amaze people by being by being able to use ed. Of course, that's because I'm very old -- old enough to have actually used V6 on a real PDP-11. I think I'll take a nap now. -- "Jazz music stimulates the minds and uplifts the souls of those who play it was well as of those who listen to immerse themselves in it. As the mind is stimulated and the soul uplifted, this is eventually reflected in the body." -- Horace Silver -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 330.gif Type: image/gif Size: 96 bytes Desc: not available URL: From downing.nick at gmail.com Wed Sep 29 10:22:54 2010 From: downing.nick at gmail.com (Nick Downing) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:22:54 +1000 Subject: [pups] PDP-11 (SIMH), Seventh Edition UNIX In-Reply-To: <4C9E234D.4020705@gmail.com> References: <4C9E234D.4020705@gmail.com> Message-ID: A cursory examination shows that only unix compilers are supported (see makefile) and Win32 (see build_mingw*.bat). There is no reason in principle why you couldn't compile it with djgpp http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/ however. This would probably be the easiest thing because djgpp is a version of gcc and the code is known to compile under gcc on the unix platforms. As you won't be running in a Windows DOS box, you must provide a DOS extender (or more correctly a DPMI server), a free one is PMODE/W http://www.sid6581.net/pmodew/ which has worked for me in the past. Another option would be to compile with the free Watcom C/C++ compilers which I believe come bundled with DOS/4GW (Rational Systems, now Tenberry Software) as the DOS extender. More of a problem is the devices, you realize that the more basic your system the more trouble you are going to have getting information in? If you only want to run the editor and C compiler for experimentation then you will get bored very quickly, I remember as a student we had access to unix terminals via a serial link and since I didn't understand telnet or ftp and didn't have any internet access and no way to put a file on or off the system it was totally useless to me. With SIMH you can transfer stuff via simulated tapes (basically tar files) but since you want to disable ^E you won't be able to do that. I would suggest you use 2.11BSD because it has networking features so you can easily transfer your source code/etc on and off the system. However that leads to a nasty problem, which is that you will have to obtain a DOS packet driver for your laptop http://www.brutman.com/Dos_Networking/packet_drivers.html and implement a simulated network device for SIMH, I did something like this a while ago and it isn't trivial. (Another option would be to get a FOSSIL driver http://pcmicro.com/bnu/ and implement a simulated serial device for SIMH, you could then make a SLIP connection to a Linux or Windows machine). All things considered I believe your best option is to restore Slackware 3 (or some other linux) and then run SIMH under that, with the TUN/TAP device or whatever to allow an ethernet connection. Somewhere I have a set of floppy disk images, I think it was Slackware 4, which you could write out to floppy and install on the box. cheers, Nick On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 2:29 AM, Mark Tuson wrote: > Hi everyone, this is my first message, after being on the mailing list for > the best part of three years :) > > I've a couple of [hopefully] simple questions about running Seventh Edition > UNIX on SIMH. > > The first question is: how can I get the C compiler to work properly? When > I've tried to compile programs, I get 'cannot create temp' - here's a full > list of what's on the screen: > > @boot > New Boot, known devices are hp ht rk rl rp tm vt > : rl(0,0)rl2unix > mem = 177856 > # Thu Sep 22 07:50:47 EDT 1988 > > login: mark > $ ed > a > main() { >   printf("  Hello.\n"); >   return; } > > . > w a.c > 46 > q > $ cc a.c > cc: cannot create temp > $ > > Also, how can I get the backspace key to erase? I've done stty erase '^H' > but I have to actually type +H to erase. > > The other thing I want to ask about is: can I compile SIMH on DOS, so it > doesn't display any messages except those of the simulated software, and so > it ignores ^E? > > I'm asking because I want v7 on an ancient laptop I've got lying around - a > 486 with 24M of core. v7x86 won't work on it, and I don't really fancy > putting Slack 3 back on it - if I'm going to go outdated, I might as well go > the whole hog and go really outdated. > > Though I might consider 2.11BSD, if that'll work on a machine with 24M of > core, and if the escapes will display properly, because > > [24;1H[?1h=[;H[2J >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~ >                  ~[H > > is a little bit difficult to work with when I'm wanting to edit source code. > > Thanks very much. Mark Tuson. > > _______________________________________________ > PUPS mailing list > PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups > > From bqt at softjar.se Wed Sep 29 19:24:30 2010 From: bqt at softjar.se (Johnny Billquist) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 11:24:30 +0200 Subject: [pups] PDP-11 (SIMH), Seventh Edition UNIX In-Reply-To: <4C9E234D.4020705@gmail.com> References: <4C9E234D.4020705@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4CA305CE.40807@softjar.se> Mark Tuson wrote: > Hi everyone, this is my first message, after being on the mailing list > for the best part of three years :) > > I've a couple of [hopefully] simple questions about running Seventh > Edition UNIX on SIMH. Oh joy! :-) > The first question is: how can I get the C compiler to work properly? > When I've tried to compile programs, I get 'cannot create temp' - here's > a full list of what's on the screen: > > @boot > New Boot, known devices are hp ht rk rl rp tm vt > : rl(0,0)rl2unix > mem = 177856 > # Thu Sep 22 07:50:47 EDT 1988 > > login: mark > $ ed > a > main() { > printf(" Hello.\n"); > return; } > > . > w a.c > 46 > q > $ cc a.c > cc: cannot create temp > $ As others have mentioned, it could be problems with /tmp protection, as well as checking if there actually is any free space there. > Also, how can I get the backspace key to erase? I've done /stty erase > '^H'/ but I have to actually type +H to erase. You need to know what code the key you call "backspace" actually sends. I suspect it is not sending a backspace, but a DEL (DEL is actually the traditional character used to delete, BS is a modern perversion). > The other thing I want to ask about is: can I compile SIMH on DOS, so it > doesn't display any messages except those of the simulated software, and > so it ignores ^E? For the messages, I'm not sure what you are thinking of. Is it the ones before boot time, or is there some other messages that you see? As for the ^E, that is configured in simh when running. > I'm asking because I want v7 on an ancient laptop I've got lying around > - a 486 with 24M of core. v7x86 won't work on it, and I don't really > fancy putting Slack 3 back on it - if I'm going to go outdated, I might > as well go the whole hog and go /really/ outdated. :-) > Though I might consider 2.11BSD, if that'll work on a machine with 24M > of core, and if the escapes will display properly, because > > [24;1H[?1h=[;H[2J > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~[H > > is a little bit difficult to work with when I'm wanting to edit source code. 2.11BSD won't make a difference. You'll see the same result. This is a problem because you are running under DOS. It is the DOS screen handler that needs to understand whatever codes are output by the programs running inside simh. In this case, the program inside simh thinks it is connected to a VT100 (or xterm, or something similar), and sends escape codes based on that. I don't know why it thinks so, but I suspect you told the system by setting the TERM variable. Please set it to something that matches reality, or else fix reality. :-) Johnny From frank at wortner.com Wed Sep 29 21:49:55 2010 From: frank at wortner.com (Frank Wortner) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:49:55 -0400 Subject: [pups] PDP-11 (SIMH), Seventh Edition UNIX In-Reply-To: References: <4C9E234D.4020705@gmail.com> Message-ID: <64EDF1EC-441F-4FA8-9FD2-064097842400@wortner.com> You've bested me there -- by a little. I only had the Sixth Edition on an 11/45. Now I could probably emulate that system on this iPhone, and it would run faster than the actual hardware. Oh well, time to stop wallowing in nostalgia. ;-) Sent from my iPhone On Sep 28, 2010, at 9:42 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote: > And besides, I've used V5 on a /40 :-) > > -- Dave, turning 58 next month From rde at tavi.co.uk Wed Sep 29 21:56:41 2010 From: rde at tavi.co.uk (Bob Eager) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 12:56:41 +0100 Subject: [pups] PDP-11 (SIMH), Seventh Edition UNIX In-Reply-To: <64EDF1EC-441F-4FA8-9FD2-064097842400@wortner.com> References: <4C9E234D.4020705@gmail.com> <64EDF1EC-441F-4FA8-9FD2-064097842400@wortner.com> Message-ID: <20100929125641.05d90167@raksha.tavi.co.uk> We had what I believe was one of the first (if not the first) UNIX system in England. Sixth Edition on an 11/40, with two RK05 drives. And I don't even know anyone else who tried Mini-UNIX - I put it on an 11/20. On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:49:55 -0400 Frank Wortner wrote: > You've bested me there -- by a little. I only had the Sixth Edition > on an 11/45. Now I could probably emulate that system on this > iPhone, and it would run faster than the actual hardware. > > Oh well, time to stop wallowing in nostalgia. ;-) > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 28, 2010, at 9:42 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote: > > And besides, I've used V5 on a /40 :-) > > > > -- Dave, turning 58 next month > _______________________________________________ > PUPS mailing list > PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups From pechter at gmail.com Thu Sep 30 00:02:38 2010 From: pechter at gmail.com (Bill Pechter) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:02:38 -0400 Subject: [pups] PDP-11 (SIMH), Seventh Edition UNIX In-Reply-To: <4CA305CE.40807@softjar.se> References: <4C9E234D.4020705@gmail.com> <4CA305CE.40807@softjar.se> Message-ID: Anyone else here remember fansi-console's ansi emulator. Works great instead of ansi.sys and is a pretty good screen driver for dos. On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote: > Mark Tuson wrote: > >> Hi everyone, this is my first message, after being on the mailing list for >> the best part of three years :) >> > Though I might consider 2.11BSD, if that'll work on a machine with 24M of > core, and if the escapes will display properly, because > >> >> [24;1H[?1h=[;H[2J >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~ >> ~[H >> >> is a little bit difficult to work with when I'm wanting to edit source >> code. >> > > 2.11BSD won't make a difference. You'll see the same result. This is a > problem because you are running under DOS. It is the DOS screen handler that > needs to understand whatever codes are output by the programs running inside > simh. In this case, the program inside simh thinks it is connected to a > VT100 (or xterm, or something similar), and sends escape codes based on > that. I don't know why it thinks so, but I suspect you told the system by > setting the TERM variable. Please set it to something that matches reality, > or else fix reality. :-) > > Johnny > Anyone else here remember fansi-console's ansi emulator. Works great instead of ansi.sys and is a pretty good screen driver for dos. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-11953307.html Bill -- d|i|g|i|t|a|l had it THEN. Don't you wish you could still buy it now! pechter-at-gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cube1 at charter.net Thu Sep 30 10:48:52 2010 From: cube1 at charter.net (Jay Jaeger) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:48:52 -0500 Subject: [pups] PDP-11 (SIMH), Seventh Edition UNIX In-Reply-To: References: <4CA305CE.40807@softjar.se> <4C9E234D.4020705@gmail.com> <4CA305CE.40807@softjar.se> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20100929194842.045f2ac8@cirithi> I do indeed. At 10:02 AM 9/29/2010 -0400, Bill Pechter wrote: >Anyone else here remember fansi-console's ansi emulator. > >Works great instead of ansi.sys and is a pretty good screen driver for dos. > >On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Johnny Billquist ><bqt at softjar.se> wrote: >Mark Tuson wrote: >Hi everyone, this is my first message, after being on the mailing list for >the best part of three years :) > >Though I might consider 2.11BSD, if that'll work on a machine with 24M of >core, and if the escapes will display properly, because >[24;1H[?1h=[;H[2J > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~[H > >is a little bit difficult to work with when I'm wanting to edit source code. > > >2.11BSD won't make a difference. You'll see the same result. This is a >problem because you are running under DOS. It is the DOS screen handler >that needs to understand whatever codes are output by the programs running >inside simh. In this case, the program inside simh thinks it is connected >to a VT100 (or xterm, or something similar), and sends escape codes based >on that. I don't know why it thinks so, but I suspect you told the system >by setting the TERM variable. Please set it to something that matches >reality, or else fix reality. :-) > > Johnny > > > >Anyone else here remember fansi-console's ansi emulator. > >Works great instead of ansi.sys and is a pretty good screen driver for dos. > >http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-11953307.html > >Bill > >-- > d|i|g|i|t|a|l had it THEN. Don't you wish you could still buy it now! > pechter-at-gmail.com >_______________________________________________ >PUPS mailing list >PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org >https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups --- Jay R. Jaeger The Computer Collection cube1 at charter.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cube1 at charter.net Thu Sep 30 10:54:39 2010 From: cube1 at charter.net (Jay Jaeger) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:54:39 -0500 Subject: [pups] PDP-11 (SIMH), Seventh Edition UNIX In-Reply-To: <20100929125641.05d90167@raksha.tavi.co.uk> References: <64EDF1EC-441F-4FA8-9FD2-064097842400@wortner.com> <4C9E234D.4020705@gmail.com> <64EDF1EC-441F-4FA8-9FD2-064097842400@wortner.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20100929195251.022d02c0@cirithi> We had a tape at the Univ. of Wisconsin, and a friend played with it, also on an 11/20 (of which I have two in my collection -- neither that particular 11/20, though one is its very close relative). The image that is on PUPS came from that friend, via myself, to PUPS. At 12:56 PM 9/29/2010 +0100, Bob Eager wrote: >We had what I believe was one of the first (if not the first) UNIX >system in England. Sixth Edition on an 11/40, with two RK05 drives. > >And I don't even know anyone else who tried Mini-UNIX - I put it on an >11/20. > > >On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:49:55 -0400 >Frank Wortner wrote: > > > You've bested me there -- by a little. I only had the Sixth Edition > > on an 11/45. Now I could probably emulate that system on this > > iPhone, and it would run faster than the actual hardware. > > > > Oh well, time to stop wallowing in nostalgia. ;-) > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Sep 28, 2010, at 9:42 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote: > > > And besides, I've used V5 on a /40 :-) > > > > > > -- Dave, turning 58 next month > > _______________________________________________ > > PUPS mailing list > > PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org > > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups > >_______________________________________________ >PUPS mailing list >PUPS at minnie.tuhs.org >https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/pups --- Jay R. Jaeger The Computer Collection cube1 at charter.net From tih at hamartun.priv.no Fri Sep 3 21:22:07 2010 From: tih at hamartun.priv.no (Tom Ivar Helbekkmo) Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 13:22:07 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] 2.11 BSD question... (exe sizes) In-Reply-To: (Jason Stevens's message of "Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:23:00 -0400") References: Message-ID: Jason Stevens writes: > I'll admit I'm not all that swift on the pdp-11, but I get the impression > that the maximum exe size is 128kb with 64kb of instructions, and 64kb of > data? Isn't there something that can be done with overlays or some other > linker thing to act like an 8086/80286 with the large memory model (ie > multiple segments...?) There is. :) > I've been trying to build ircII-4.4 and I can't figure out how to link > something that big... I've tried the -Z and -O flags to ld to no avail. > > Clearly I'm doing either something wrong, or impossible or stupid. IIRC, you want something along the lines of: ld -i -o irc -Z a.o b.o -Z c.o d.o -Z e.o f.o -Y g.o h.o -lc where -i says to use split I/D (64KB for each), each -Z introduces a set of object modules to go into one overlay, and the -Y introduces the object modules that are not to be overlaid. You'll want your main() to be in the -Y group, ideally along with the most used parts of the code. Each -Z group should ideally contain object modules that are all used at the same time; the idea is to minimize the number of overlay swaps that have to be done. There are binaries in 2.11BSD that are built in this way. Look for the -Z flag in the Makefiles. Use size(1) on the a.out to see the sizes of the various overlays and the main area: you'll get error messages from ld(1), and size(1) will help you figure out how you need to move objects around to keep the main area under 56KB, and each overlay under 8KB. (Actually, I seem to recall that those limits can also be 48 and 16, or 40 and 24, and so on. 'man ld' might be of help.) > FWIW, here is the size of the same program on the VAX > > myname# ls -l irc-4.4 > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root 413696 Jun 8 08:46 irc-4.4* > myname# size irc-4.4 > text data bss dec hex > 293888 67584 20784 382256 5d530 > > I have a feeling that 300kb of text, along with 67kb of data is just too > much...? You might be able to squeeze it in. Your data space usage will be less on a 16-bit system, and you may be able to reduce the sizes of arrays and allocations here and there by accepting limitations in the resulting program. -tih -- I don't believe that souls or bodies can be changed by incantation. --Christopher Hitchens From shadoooo at gmail.com Sat Sep 11 16:44:08 2010 From: shadoooo at gmail.com (shadoooo) Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2010 08:44:08 +0200 Subject: [TUHS] DG/UX for DG AV5500? Message-ID: <4C8B2538.4050708@gmail.com> Hello. I have a working Data General Aviion AV5500. I'm searching for DG/UX tape images, documents and software for it, specially development kits for C. Anybody has a machine like this or some data? Thanks Andrea From reed at reedmedia.net Tue Sep 28 08:28:39 2010 From: reed at reedmedia.net (Jeremy C. Reed) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:28:39 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [TUHS] where to download 4.1BSD, 4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c and others? Message-ID: I see The Unix Tree has browsable "4.1c BSD". Where can I download this (so I don't have to browse)? Also where can I find downloads for 4.1BSD and 4.1aBSD and 4.1cBSD and anything after 2BSD but before 2.79BSD? Thanks Jeremy C. Reed From jhell at DataIX.net Tue Sep 28 09:17:38 2010 From: jhell at DataIX.net (jhell) Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:17:38 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] where to download 4.1BSD, 4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c and others? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CA12612.7020509@DataIX.net> On 09/27/2010 18:28, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > I see The Unix Tree has browsable "4.1c BSD". Where can I download this > (so I don't have to browse)? > > Also where can I find downloads for 4.1BSD and 4.1aBSD and 4.1cBSD and > anything after 2BSD but before 2.79BSD? > > Thanks > > Jeremy C. Reed > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs All the information you need is right here my friend http://minnie.tuhs.org/TUHS/archive_sites.html -- jhell,v From downing.nick at gmail.com Tue Sep 28 15:54:26 2010 From: downing.nick at gmail.com (Nick Downing) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:54:26 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] 2.11BSD cross compiler Message-ID: hi everyone, Just to let you all know that a few years ago I adapted the 2.11BSD source so that it could be built on a modern system and transferred across to the PDP-11. The changes are: 1. The PDP-11 assembler was written in assembler so made a line-by-line translation into C code. 2. The C compiler required access to PDP-11 math e.g. for constant folding, so I inserted some code from Bob Supnik's emulator in those places. 3. Basically everything that runs from a makefile (e.g. "sh", "make", "yacc", etc) has been upgraded to a more modern coding style with non portable code fixed up, independence on type sizes, prototypes added, etc, and the build system now generates two versions where appropriate, one for running locally (compiled with gcc or whatever your local compiler is) and one for inclusion in the distribution (compiled with the PDP-11 cross toolchain). 4. I also fixed a number of "just plain bugs" that obviously had remained undiscovered under PDP-11 conditions. I used conditional compilation and macros where appropriate so as not to break the PDP-11's ability to run the toolchain locally. I used a binary comparison between the locally compiled build and the cross compiled build to weed out bugs, and it did seem to be pretty robust as I left it. The only reason I didn't make this work available generally (apart from laziness), was that there's quite a few experimental changes in addition to points 1-4, for example: 5. A reworking of the (existing) system that extracts strings and puts them in the code segment (necessary to get the PDP-11 to run large executables such as nethack). I can't really remember why I did this, probably just to clean things up, but I don't think it's all that essential so perhaps could be removed for the sake of minimal change. 6. Some changes to how "make" works, and to the Makefiles, intended to clean things up, which in retrospect weren't essential and should be removed (except for those changes necessary for point 3 above, need to untangle it somehow). I didn't get around to converting all Makefiles so there's probably a bit of inconsistency there. I might have broken some things like "make tags" and "make depend", not sure. 7. Fortran stuff had to be disabled as the Fortran compiler is written in assembly language (IIRC) and would probably be difficult to convert into C (but I don't think this is a big deal). If anybody volunteers to sift through the changes and sort out the good from the dross then I will happily send the whole thing. cheers, Nick From newsham at lava.net Wed Sep 29 10:24:45 2010 From: newsham at lava.net (Tim Newsham) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:24:45 -1000 (HST) Subject: [TUHS] 2.11BSD cross compiler In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > 7. Fortran stuff had to be disabled as the Fortran compiler is written > in assembly language (IIRC) and would probably be difficult to convert > into C (but I don't think this is a big deal). have you considered running Warren's emulator that can run individual binaries (rather than emulating the entire system)? This could let you use a few (or many, if you chose) native tools in the build process without giving up portability. http://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub///mirrors/minnie.tuhs.org/PDP-11/Emulators/Apout/ http://puszcza.gnu.org.ua/software/apout/ > cheers, Nick Tim Newsham | www.thenewsh.com/~newsham | thenewsh.blogspot.com From lm at bitmover.com Wed Sep 29 10:51:48 2010 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:51:48 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] 2.11BSD cross compiler In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100929005148.GA8032@bitmover.com> There is close zero chance I'll ever use this stuff, unless I retire to teaching in which case I'll make people write PDP-11 assembler. But I had to come say thanks for doing this. The PDP-11 was such an amazingly pleasant machine to program. I can easily imagine that translating stuff from assembler to C is pretty straightforward. RIP DEC, you brought us some good stuff. On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 02:24:45PM -1000, Tim Newsham wrote: >> 7. Fortran stuff had to be disabled as the Fortran compiler is written >> in assembly language (IIRC) and would probably be difficult to convert >> into C (but I don't think this is a big deal). > > have you considered running Warren's emulator that can > run individual binaries (rather than emulating the entire > system)? This could let you use a few (or many, if you chose) > native tools in the build process without giving up portability. > > http://ftp.math.utah.edu/pub///mirrors/minnie.tuhs.org/PDP-11/Emulators/Apout/ > http://puszcza.gnu.org.ua/software/apout/ > >> cheers, Nick > > Tim Newsham | www.thenewsh.com/~newsham | thenewsh.blogspot.com > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From cowan at ccil.org Wed Sep 29 12:14:09 2010 From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:14:09 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] 2.11BSD cross compiler In-Reply-To: <20100929005148.GA8032@bitmover.com> References: <20100929005148.GA8032@bitmover.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Larry McVoy wrote: > There is close zero chance I'll ever use this stuff, unless I retire > to teaching in which case I'll make people write PDP-11 assembler. That seems a tad archaic. MIPS might be a better choice; it's 32-bit with 32 registers, and there are excellent simulators for it. From reed at reedmedia.net Wed Sep 29 12:16:47 2010 From: reed at reedmedia.net (Jeremy C. Reed) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 21:16:47 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [TUHS] where to download 4.1BSD, 4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c and others? In-Reply-To: <4CA12612.7020509@DataIX.net> References: <4CA12612.7020509@DataIX.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, jhell wrote: > On 09/27/2010 18:28, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > > I see The Unix Tree has browsable "4.1c BSD". Where can I download this > > (so I don't have to browse)? > > > > Also where can I find downloads for 4.1BSD and 4.1aBSD and 4.1cBSD and > > anything after 2BSD but before 2.79BSD? > All the information you need is right here my friend > > http://minnie.tuhs.org/TUHS/archive_sites.html I have looked many times (before I sent email). If you have a specific URL, please point me to it. I also received multiple emails off-list telling me to buy McKusick's archives. From lm at bitmover.com Wed Sep 29 12:38:19 2010 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 19:38:19 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] 2.11BSD cross compiler In-Reply-To: References: <20100929005148.GA8032@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <20100929023819.GA12919@bitmover.com> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:14:09PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > There is close zero chance I'll ever use this stuff, unless I retire > > to teaching in which case I'll make people write PDP-11 assembler. > > That seems a tad archaic. MIPS might be a better choice; it's 32-bit > with 32 registers, and there are excellent simulators for it. Color me old school. I like MIPS, I worked at SGI (got married to an old school MIPS gal) but PDP-11 is so frigging intuitive. How can you not understand that instruction set? If you can't, well, sorry, not so much in my book. It's like a stripped down C. Come on - has anyone ever seen a better instruction set? More complicated, yeah, holy moly, yeah. But cleaner? We owe DEC for that one. That said, John is, as always, (probably) right. He's certainly right if we are talking about skills that go to today's market, PDP-11 is not so much. I said "probably" because I suspect there are some people for whom the light will go on if they do PDP-11 assembler but not so much on MIPS. Personally, I like anyone who can do any assembler. One of my interview questions is "have you written swtch?" If you don't get the question you are not an OS person, if you are, of course you get it. In any assembler (I wrote it in VAX, M68K, NS32032 though that last one was wishful thinking - I still wish that one hadn't been so buggy). All this late night rambling aside, +1 on the efforts of Nick, +1 on anyone who groks PDP-11 assembly. Those are soon to be lost skills and I admire them. Had a TA who could read octal dumps just like they were C. Ken Witte - wonder where he is now. I used to bribe him with a six pack to come over and help me and he'd have a beer in his hand and the line printer output in the other and be laughing at me for some retarded thing I had done that he figured out from the octal. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From lm at bitmover.com Wed Sep 29 12:39:51 2010 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 19:39:51 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] where to download 4.1BSD, 4.1a, 4.1b, 4.1c and others? In-Reply-To: References: <4CA12612.7020509@DataIX.net> Message-ID: <20100929023951.GB12919@bitmover.com> > I also received multiple emails off-list telling me to buy > McKusick's archives. As well you should, I'm pretty sure they have the SCCS history. If you need a SCCS tool that can read 'em, we still have that though we're about to toss that compat mode. If not us, find some SCCS tool and start browsing, the history is fun. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From cowan at ccil.org Wed Sep 29 12:59:22 2010 From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:59:22 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] 2.11BSD cross compiler In-Reply-To: <20100929023819.GA12919@bitmover.com> References: <20100929005148.GA8032@bitmover.com> <20100929023819.GA12919@bitmover.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Larry McVoy wrote: > Color me old school.  I like MIPS, I worked at SGI (got married to > an old school MIPS gal) but PDP-11 is so frigging intuitive.  How > can you not understand that instruction set?  If you can't, well, > sorry, not so much in my book.  It's like a stripped down C. Yeah. I used it on and off, but my serious assembler programming was on the PDP-8. Now *that* was seriously small, but you had to know the tricks, like how to find out the absolute address of the 128-word memory page following the one you are on when writing PIC code for OS/8 device drivers, or how to microprogram the operate instructions get interesting constants into the AC. > Come on - has anyone ever seen a better instruction set?  More > complicated, yeah, holy moly, yeah.  But cleaner?  We owe DEC > for that one. I remember how appalled I was when I saw the VAX instruction set. Luckily, it didn't matter: I never did assembler again. Still, trying to make people think in octal at this late date seems unnecessary. > Personally, I like anyone who can do any assembler.  One of my interview > questions is "have you written swtch?" /me chuckles. >  If you don't get the question you are not an OS person, > if you are, of course you get it. Well, I know what it is but I've never written it. There was a bug in the V6 kernel version anyhow. > Ken Witte - wonder where he is now. Too many others out there, alas. From imp at bsdimp.com Wed Sep 29 13:14:00 2010 From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 21:14:00 -0600 (MDT) Subject: [TUHS] 2.11BSD cross compiler In-Reply-To: <20100929023819.GA12919@bitmover.com> References: <20100929005148.GA8032@bitmover.com> <20100929023819.GA12919@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <20100928.211400.135748621321694136.imp@bsdimp.com> In message: <20100929023819.GA12919 at bitmover.com> Larry McVoy writes: : Had a TA who could read octal dumps just like they : were C. Ken Witte - wonder where he is now. I used to bribe him with : a six pack to come over and help me and he'd have a beer in his hand : and the line printer output in the other and be laughing at me for some : retarded thing I had done that he figured out from the octal. I used to impress the first year C students by typing 'more core' and then pointing to a random spot on the screen and saying "Oh, you passed NULL to strcmp here." The sad thing was, I had about a 75% hit rate... Not really a 'skill' but rather just knowing the common errors for the current assignment and being a lucky guesser :) Warner From lyricalnanoha at usotsuki.hoshinet.org Wed Sep 29 13:17:33 2010 From: lyricalnanoha at usotsuki.hoshinet.org (Steve Nickolas) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 05:17:33 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [TUHS] 2.11BSD cross compiler In-Reply-To: <20100929023819.GA12919@bitmover.com> References: <20100929005148.GA8032@bitmover.com> <20100929023819.GA12919@bitmover.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Larry McVoy wrote: > Color me old school. I like MIPS, I worked at SGI (got married to > an old school MIPS gal) but PDP-11 is so frigging intuitive. How > can you not understand that instruction set? If you can't, well, > sorry, not so much in my book. It's like a stripped down C. > > Come on - has anyone ever seen a better instruction set? More > complicated, yeah, holy moly, yeah. But cleaner? We owe DEC > for that one. Dunno, the only instruction set I really grok is 65C02, which is by your standards probably little more than a toy. -uso. From lm at bitmover.com Wed Sep 29 13:44:54 2010 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:44:54 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] 2.11BSD cross compiler In-Reply-To: References: <20100929005148.GA8032@bitmover.com> <20100929023819.GA12919@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <20100929034454.GD12919@bitmover.com> On all this old school stuff - just in case you think it doesn't matter, it does. One of the best guys I have here is a guy who did printer firmware. I had to teach him what a cache was, he had never seen one. But holy moly does he hold the whole picture in his head. And has forgotten more about SCM than I'll ever know (we do that stuff, BitKeeper, etc). People who understand the hardware are useful. I cringe at what we call a CS degree these days. And BTW, if you are one of those old school guys and want a job, hit me up. We're very picky, we have a ~8 year retention rate, but that's because we make sure that you will be happy and we will be happy. If we have one good hire a year I'm ecstatic. Gotta be Bay Area for the first year though (you can live in my guest house in the redwoods :) --lm On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:59:22PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Larry McVoy wrote: > > > Color me old school.  I like MIPS, I worked at SGI (got married to > > an old school MIPS gal) but PDP-11 is so frigging intuitive.  How > > can you not understand that instruction set?  If you can't, well, > > sorry, not so much in my book.  It's like a stripped down C. > > Yeah. I used it on and off, but my serious assembler programming was > on the PDP-8. Now *that* was seriously small, but you had to know the > tricks, like how to find out the absolute address of the 128-word > memory page following the one you are on when writing PIC code for > OS/8 device drivers, or how to microprogram the operate instructions > get interesting constants into the AC. > > > Come on - has anyone ever seen a better instruction set?  More > > complicated, yeah, holy moly, yeah.  But cleaner?  We owe DEC > > for that one. > > I remember how appalled I was when I saw the VAX instruction set. > Luckily, it didn't matter: I never did assembler again. Still, trying > to make people think in octal at this late date seems unnecessary. > > > Personally, I like anyone who can do any assembler.  One of my interview > > questions is "have you written swtch?" > > /me chuckles. > > >  If you don't get the question you are not an OS person, > > if you are, of course you get it. > > Well, I know what it is but I've never written it. There was a bug in > the V6 kernel version anyhow. > > > Ken Witte - wonder where he is now. > > Too many others out there, alas. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From lm at bitmover.com Wed Sep 29 13:55:34 2010 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:55:34 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] 2.11BSD cross compiler In-Reply-To: References: <20100929005148.GA8032@bitmover.com> <20100929023819.GA12919@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <20100929035534.GE12919@bitmover.com> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 05:17:33AM +0200, Steve Nickolas wrote: > On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Larry McVoy wrote: > >> Color me old school. I like MIPS, I worked at SGI (got married to >> an old school MIPS gal) but PDP-11 is so frigging intuitive. How >> can you not understand that instruction set? If you can't, well, >> sorry, not so much in my book. It's like a stripped down C. >> >> Come on - has anyone ever seen a better instruction set? More >> complicated, yeah, holy moly, yeah. But cleaner? We owe DEC >> for that one. > > Dunno, the only instruction set I really grok is 65C02, which is by your > standards probably little more than a toy. Oh, no. Useful. There was similar Intel (i think) cpu that was flashable. I wrote code for it that muxed two lines over one serial line. I'm sorta proud of this, this was back in the BLIT days (loved that terminal, holy crap, loved it). I was a grad student at Wisconsin and we had one long serial port line to our office, no ethernet (this was back when 10Mbit was really weird). Shared an office with another guy and we had one blit. I talked the department out of another one, and did a wire wrapped board with that CPU on it and all it did was use the 8th bit to mux. Bit set, his blit, not set, my blit. Worked fantastic until the blits melted. Still miss those, they were the X terminal ahead of their time. Anyhoo, the 6502 is a fine little processor and knowing how to make it sing is a useful skill. It's not the toy-ness so much, it's what you do with it. You can do a lot with that CPU, ask any car company. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From wkt at tuhs.org Wed Sep 29 14:34:51 2010 From: wkt at tuhs.org (Warren Toomey) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:34:51 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] 6502 and swtch, was Re: 2.11BSD cross compiler In-Reply-To: <20100929035534.GE12919@bitmover.com> References: <20100929005148.GA8032@bitmover.com> <20100929023819.GA12919@bitmover.com> <20100929035534.GE12919@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <20100929043451.GA2673@minnie.tuhs.org> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 05:17:33AM +0200, Steve Nickolas wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Larry McVoy wrote: > > Dunno, the only instruction set I really grok is 65C02, which is by your > > standards probably little more than a toy. On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 08:55:34PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > Anyhoo, the 6502 is a fine little processor and knowing how to make it > sing is a useful skill. Argh, I wasn't going to post back but I can't resist. Back in the 80's I rewrote Xinu from C into 6502 assembly, and got very primitive multitasking working on the Apple ][. I guess that counts as writing swtch :-) ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/pub/apple2/apple2xinu.tar.gz Cheers, Warren From lyricalnanoha at usotsuki.hoshinet.org Wed Sep 29 15:13:37 2010 From: lyricalnanoha at usotsuki.hoshinet.org (Steve Nickolas) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:13:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [TUHS] 6502 and swtch, was Re: 2.11BSD cross compiler In-Reply-To: <20100929043451.GA2673@minnie.tuhs.org> References: <20100929005148.GA8032@bitmover.com> <20100929023819.GA12919@bitmover.com> <20100929035534.GE12919@bitmover.com> <20100929043451.GA2673@minnie.tuhs.org> Message-ID: On Wed, 29 Sep 2010, Warren Toomey wrote: > Argh, I wasn't going to post back but I can't resist. Back in the 80's I > rewrote Xinu from C into 6502 assembly, and got very primitive multitasking > working on the Apple ][. I guess that counts as writing swtch :-) > > ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/pub/apple2/apple2xinu.tar.gz Specific to, I'm guessing, the banking hardware of the Laser 3000/Dick Smith Cat? (I saw a disk image on Asimov with your name on it that mentioned the Cat. I've used a Laser 128, but never a 3000 which is apparently a bit more different from a real ][.) It might be made to work on a real ][ with some heavy wizardry. I think I saw someone on comp.sys.apple2 talking about doing that a few months back. Running some sort of *x on an Apple ][ would be interesting, seeing as it's been done on the C64. I actually own an Apple //e. -uso. From john_finigan at yahoo.com Thu Sep 30 02:20:41 2010 From: john_finigan at yahoo.com (John Finigan) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:20:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [TUHS] 2.11BSD cross compiler In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <311237.31998.qm@web37007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> > > There is close zero chance I'll ever use this stuff, > > unless I retire > > to teaching in which case I'll make people write > > PDP-11 assembler. > > That seems a tad archaic.  MIPS might be a better > choice; it's 32-bit > with 32 registers, and there are excellent simulators for > it. At my university there's a grad class that's ostensibly on reverse engineering,but you can't really disassemble anything if you don't learn assembler, so you learn it. The downside, I guess, is that I've read a decent amount of x86 assembler, but written very little. I don't think it's a bad way to learn, but of course, Larry was talking about teaching a nice instruction set, and you kind of lose that. But you get Windows DLL function calling back as a booby prize. John Finigan From lm at bitmover.com Thu Sep 30 07:34:41 2010 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:34:41 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] 2.11BSD cross compiler In-Reply-To: <20100929205442.GA2858@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <20100929005148.GA8032@bitmover.com> <20100929023819.GA12919@bitmover.com> <20100929035534.GE12919@bitmover.com> <20100929205442.GA2858@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20100929213441.GE32130@bitmover.com> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 06:54:42AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2010-Sep-28 20:55:34 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > >On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 05:17:33AM +0200, Steve Nickolas wrote: > >> Dunno, the only instruction set I really grok is 65C02, which is by your > >> standards probably little more than a toy. > > > >Oh, no. Useful. There was similar Intel (i think) cpu that was flashable. > > Maybe 8748. There was a mask version of this in the PC keyboard > controller (and hence still buried in most if not all southbridges). > That was followed by the 8051 family (8751 would have been the EPROM > version) - which I believe was very popular in car ECUs. It was also I think it was a variant of the 8051 that had EPROM and 3 UARTs. Because I needed 3 - one for the long line to the CS building, and 2 for the 2 terminals. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com From grog at lemis.com Thu Sep 30 14:22:29 2010 From: grog at lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:22:29 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] PDP-8 (was: 2.11BSD cross compiler) In-Reply-To: References: <20100929005148.GA8032@bitmover.com> <20100929023819.GA12919@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <20100930042229.GA66070@dereel.lemis.com> On Tuesday, 28 September 2010 at 22:59:22 -0400, John Cowan wrote: > On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Larry McVoy wrote: > >> Color me old school.  I like MIPS, I worked at SGI (got married to >> an old school MIPS gal) but PDP-11 is so frigging intuitive.  How >> can you not understand that instruction set?  If you can't, well, >> sorry, not so much in my book.  It's like a stripped down C. > > Yeah. I used it on and off, but my serious assembler programming > was on the PDP-8. Now *that* was seriously small, but you had to > know the tricks, like how to find out the absolute address of the > 128-word memory page following the one you are on when writing PIC > code for OS/8 device drivers, or how to microprogram the operate > instructions get interesting constants into the AC. That was my first machine too (well, a PDP-12, which was really a hybrid PDP-8/LINC-8, but I only used the PDP-8 instructions). That was a nice, compact instruction set. It has the great advantage that I can still remember just about every instruction today. Remember the autoincrement registers? Even in those days they looked like a kludge, but they helped a lot. >> Come on - has anyone ever seen a better instruction set?  More >> complicated, yeah, holy moly, yeah.  But cleaner?  We owe DEC >> for that one. > > I remember how appalled I was when I saw the VAX instruction set. > Luckily, it didn't matter: I never did assembler again. Still, > trying to make people think in octal at this late date seems > unnecessary. It's funny how long octal clung on. It should have gone away with 8 bit bytes. But somehow I still have a soft spot for octal, and numbers like 7778 still look wrong. >> Personally, I like anyone who can do any assembler.  One of my interview >> questions is "have you written swtch?" >> >>  If you don't get the question you are not an OS person, >> if you are, of course you get it. Hmm. Am I expected to understand this? Seriously, I don't know how many people really wrote anything like swtch (). Greg -- Finger grog at FreeBSD.org for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. This message is digitally signed. See http://www.lemis.com/grog/email/signed-mail.php for more details. If your Microsoft MUA reports problems, please read http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 195 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cowan at ccil.org Thu Sep 30 14:53:55 2010 From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:53:55 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] PDP-8 (was: 2.11BSD cross compiler) In-Reply-To: <20100930042229.GA66070@dereel.lemis.com> References: <20100929005148.GA8032@bitmover.com> <20100929023819.GA12919@bitmover.com> <20100930042229.GA66070@dereel.lemis.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >  Remember the > autoincrement registers?  Even in those days they looked like a > kludge, but they helped a lot. I hardly ever used them, but I can't remember exactly why not. I remember writing quite a few subroutine libraries in PAL/8, and of course you didn't want to steal them from the main program. > It's funny how long octal clung on.  It should have gone away with 8 > bit bytes. Octal made some sense on the PDP-11, with its 3-bit register fields, even though the instructions were 16 bits. I think the notation got stabilized in the culture just because it was included in C. In my pre-announcement review of Go (not a work assignment, just something I went and did when I was at Google) I urged them to remove octal from integer, character, and string literals, but nope, they are still there. For one thing, it means that literals interoperate among C, C++, and Go, though I don't know if that was the motivation. >  But somehow I still have a soft spot for octal, and > numbers like 7778 still look wrong. /me chuckles. > Hmm.  Am I expected to understand this? No. From peterjeremy at acm.org Thu Sep 30 06:54:42 2010 From: peterjeremy at acm.org (Peter Jeremy) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 06:54:42 +1000 Subject: [TUHS] 2.11BSD cross compiler In-Reply-To: <20100929035534.GE12919@bitmover.com> References: <20100929005148.GA8032@bitmover.com> <20100929023819.GA12919@bitmover.com> <20100929035534.GE12919@bitmover.com> Message-ID: <20100929205442.GA2858@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> On 2010-Sep-28 20:55:34 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: >On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 05:17:33AM +0200, Steve Nickolas wrote: >> Dunno, the only instruction set I really grok is 65C02, which is by your >> standards probably little more than a toy. > >Oh, no. Useful. There was similar Intel (i think) cpu that was flashable. Maybe 8748. There was a mask version of this in the PC keyboard controller (and hence still buried in most if not all southbridges). That was followed by the 8051 family (8751 would have been the EPROM version) - which I believe was very popular in car ECUs. It was also multi-sourced. I've used both i8748 and a Philips 8051 clone at $work many years ago. >Anyhoo, the 6502 is a fine little processor and knowing how to make it >sing is a useful skill. For various reasons, I never learnt 6502. I preferred the Motorola CPUs (though $work was very Intel based). -- Peter Jeremy -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 196 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lm at bitmover.com Thu Sep 30 23:50:29 2010 From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 06:50:29 -0700 Subject: [TUHS] PDP-8 (was: 2.11BSD cross compiler) In-Reply-To: <20100930042229.GA66070@dereel.lemis.com> References: <20100929005148.GA8032@bitmover.com> <20100929023819.GA12919@bitmover.com> <20100930042229.GA66070@dereel.lemis.com> Message-ID: <20100930135029.GB30928@bitmover.com> > >>  If you don't get the question you are not an OS person, > >> if you are, of course you get it. > > Hmm. Am I expected to understand this? Seriously, I don't know how > many people really wrote anything like swtch (). You'd be amazed at how many people did their own user level threads. Gotta write swtch() for that. And it's not swtch() so much as do you understand the stack frames? If you could look at the stack frames and give me a stack trace that's more or less the same thing. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com