I've assembled some notes from old manuals and other sources
on the formats used for on-disk file systems through the
Seventh Edition:
http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/~norman/old-unix/old-fs.html
Additional notes, comments on style, and whatnot are welcome.
(It may be sensible to send anything in the last two categories
directly to me, rather than to the whole list.)
In article by johna(a)babel.apana.org.au:
> Hi Warren,
> I have a set (11 I think) of manuals for the Unisys 5000 / 7000 series
> which I'd be happy to give away. Not sure if they are of historical
> interest (too recent, perhaps) or if it was a landmark computer ...
>
> Anyway, I'd be happy to donate them to the Unix archive if you're
> interested. I'm in Sydney, North Ryde, and would be happy to pass them
> on next time we're in earshot of each other
Actually, your email made me think: if I collect _erverything_ offered to
me, then I _will_ run out of room soon.
So, how about the idea of a register? You tell me what you have & your
contact details. I put up a web page with the stuff, your name, and
your contact details if you are happy.
Then, if people want access to them, they can contact you. Or, if you'd
rather not have your contact details on the web, they can contact me.
And if you feel like getting rid of them, you can email me and I'll see
if anybody wants them.
Let me know what you think. P.S I'm cc'ing this to the PUPS mail list
for similar comments.
Cheers,
Warren
Hi -
> From: Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au>
> Do you recall the PC-board hack on the sep-ID machines that changed
No, I do not recall seeing a PCB hack (hacking on an 11/70 was
frowned upon ;))
> the MFPI instruction to do something that was expressly prohibited?
But I do know what that 'something' was. In "user" or "supervisor"
mode MPFI functioned as "MFPD" - a user program could not read its own
I(nstruction) space. Only for "kernel" mode did MFPI access the
I space.
> Something about allowing a user program to access something else, for
> some obscure hack or other...
It was aimed at providing "execute only" code - a program could "run"
but not "read" its code space.
This caused problems though if trap handlers (floating point exception
handling comes to mind) needed to retrieve the faulted instruction
for inspection/analysis. Thus in 2BSD there is a system call that
programs can issue to request the KERNEL to do the 'mfpi' for them
and return the value.
Steven Schultz
sms(a)moe.2bsd.com
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10091
for pups-liszt; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 19:48:18 +1000 (EST)
>From Johnny Billquist <bqt(a)Update.UU.SE> Thu Sep 9 19:58:19 1999
Received: from Zeke.Update.UU.SE (IDENT:2026@Zeke.Update.UU.SE [130.238.11.14])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10087
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 19:48:09 +1000 (EST)
Received: from localhost (bqt@localhost)
by Zeke.Update.UU.SE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA22975;
Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:58:20 +0200
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:58:19 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Johnny Billquist <bqt(a)Update.UU.SE>
To: Warren Toomey <wkt(a)cs.adfa.edu.au>
cc: Unix Heritage Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?
In-Reply-To: <199909062356.JAA12397(a)henry.cs.adfa.edu.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.VUL.3.93.990909115534.22939A-100000(a)Zeke.Update.UU.SE>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Warren Toomey wrote:
> These executables were written for a PDP-11/20. Are there any significant
> USER-MODE differences between the 11/20 and later PDP-11 models? I'm
> thinking missing instructions, different addressing mode behaviour etc.
As far as I can remember, there aren't any huge differences. However, some
stuff behave differently in the 11/20. On the other hand, some stuff
behave differently in just about every implementation...
Condition flags on some instructions specifically. And the 11/20 might
have had some limitations on using the PC which differed as well.
I have a processor handbook for the "modern" -11s, which has a chart with
all differences between different models. I started writing it down, to
place in the PDP-11 FAQ, but haven't come that far yet...
Johnny
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt(a)update.uu.se || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
Are, I was afraid of that. The KE11-A wasn't a real CPU option, but
was a peripheral that sat on the Unibus
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03506
for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:58:18 +1000 (EST)
>From Tim Shoppa <SHOPPA(a)trailing-edge.com> Wed Sep 8 11:12:00 1999
Received: from timaxp.trailing-edge.com (timaxp.trailing-edge.com [63.73.218.130])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA03501
for <PUPS(a)MINNIE.CS.ADFA.edu.AU>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:58:10 +1000 (EST)
Received: by timaxp.trailing-edge.com for PUPS(a)MINNIE.CS.ADFA.edu.AU;
Tue, 7 Sep 1999 21:12:00 -0400
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 21:12:00 -0400
From: Tim Shoppa <SHOPPA(a)trailing-edge.com>
To: PUPS(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Message-Id: <990907211200.2020016c(a)trailing-edge.com>
Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
>These executables were written for a PDP-11/20. Are there any significant
>USER-MODE differences between the 11/20 and later PDP-11 models? I'm
>thinking missing instructions, different addressing mode behaviour etc.
Well, first of all, there is no "User mode" on the 11/20 unless you have
a KT11 installed. Everything is kernel mode with no KT11. Maybe the
executables are trying to go out and directly bang on the console CSR's,
the switch register, or the interrupt vectors themselves?
11/20's also frequently had the EAE (Extended Arithmetic Element)
installed, to make up for the fact that there was no multiply, divide,
or multiple shift instructions in the native instruction set (and
wouldn't be until the EIS came along.) The EAE was a peripheral
living in I/O space (773000-777316); you wrote the operands to the EAE
locations and read the results later. You can put a EAE in a machine
with EIS, but generally you only did this if you had some binaries without
sources using the EAE (I know of several sites running 11/24's and 11/44's
with EAE's today)
There are many other differences, especially dealing with "funny" address
modes. Generally, folks like me who have to code so that something works
across all the -11's know better than to do these things, but back when
there was *only* the 11/20 some folks didn't know any better and used
them anyway.
First, we have instructions that use the same register as source
and destination, with an auto-increment one or the other:
1. OPR R,(R)+ on an 11/20 increments R before it's used as a source
operand. On an 11/45 the initial contents of R are used.
2. Same thing for OPR R,-(R).
3. JMP (R)+ or JSR reg,(R)+ increments R before putting it in the PC
on the 11/20; on the 11/45 R isn't incremented until after the old
value is put in the PC.
4. On an 11/20, JMP %R traps to 4; on an 11/45, JMP %R traps to 10
5. On an 11/20, SWAB does not change the V flag; on every other machine,
SWAB clears V. (In the 11/20 processor handbook, it *says* that SWAB
clears the V flag, but that's not the way the machine actually worked!)
6. On an 11/20, R0-R7 can be used by the program at addresses 177700-
177717; on any other machine, they can't be used that way and will
result in a non-existent memory (NXM) trap. This can be used for some
neat tricks where you run code out of the registers (which of course
is quite non-portable!)
There's lots more differences, having to do with T bits and interrupt
handling, but I don't know if you're getting that far... and these
aren't things that you have to worry about in user mode, anyway.
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03564
for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:03:51 +1000 (EST)
>From Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au> Wed Sep 8 11:15:48 1999
Received: from caveman.geac.com.au (caveman.geac.com.au [203.30.73.2])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA03558
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:03:40 +1000 (EST)
Received: (qmail 4832 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1999 11:21:32 +1000
Received: from trowel.geac.com.au (203.1.26.189)
by caveman.geac.com.au with SMTP; 8 Sep 1999 11:21:32 +1000
Received: (qmail 27748 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1999 11:29:48 +1000
Received: from fgh.geac.com.au (202.6.67.163)
by trowel.geac.com.au with SMTP; 8 Sep 1999 11:29:49 +1000
Received: from localhost (dave@localhost)
by fgh.geac.com.au?r with ESMTP id LAA21756
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:15:48 +1000
X-Envelope-From: dave(a)horsfall.org
X-Envelope-To: <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>
X-Authentication-Warning: fgh.geac.com.au: dave owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:15:48 +1000 (EST)
From: Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au>
X-Sender: dave@fgh
To: PDP Unix Preservation Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?
In-Reply-To: <199909070604.XAA04723(a)mpl.ucsd.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.9909081103330.19899-100000@fgh>
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-Witty-Saying: "Tesseract - Enter at own risk"
X-Disclaimer: "Me, speak for us?"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Carl Lowenstein wrote:
> The first genuine user-mode difference that I remember coming across was
> an incompatibility in the result of
>
> MOV SP, -(SP)
Anything involving the same register as src and dst in this way was,
err, different...
And I have an annotation that the JSR does not behave as documented.
Unlike page 91, the sequence is not (tmp) <- (dst) / v(SP) <- reg /
reg <- PC / PC <- (tmp). The first ISP code is not present i.e. the
SP is decremented first, not saved, and the last is PC <- (dst).
> It isn't really clear to me why one would want to use this particular
> instruction, however it turned out to hang both BASIC and FOCAL at the
> time. A zero-length patch wasn't too hard to figure out.
Some sort of frame pointer linking, on an architecture that didn't
have separate frame pointers (like the Vax)?
--
Dave Horsfall VK2KFU dave(a)geac.com.au Ph: +61 2 9978-7493 Fx: +61 2 9978-7422
Geac Computers P/L (FGH Division) 2/57 Christie St, St Leonards 2065, Australia
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03594
for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:05:14 +1000 (EST)
>From Tim Shoppa <SHOPPA(a)trailing-edge.com> Wed Sep 8 10:48:50 1999
Received: from timaxp.trailing-edge.com (timaxp.trailing-edge.com [63.73.218.130])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA03588
for <PUPS(a)MINNIE.CS.ADFA.edu.AU>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:05:07 +1000 (EST)
Received: by timaxp.trailing-edge.com for PUPS(a)MINNIE.CS.ADFA.edu.AU;
Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:48:50 -0400
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:48:50 -0400
From: Tim Shoppa <SHOPPA(a)trailing-edge.com>
To: PUPS(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Message-Id: <990907204850.202001b4(a)trailing-edge.com>
Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
> MOV SP, -(SP)
>
>It isn't really clear to me why one would want to use this particular
>instruction
"MOV SP" is often-used shorthand for "MOV some-non-zero-value", since no
sane implementation would ever have a zero in the SP. So this would
put a non-zero value on top of the stack (perhaps as a flag, to be
cleared by CLR (SP) when ready) - at least on machines where this was legal!
On which machine does this fail, BTW? On a 11/15, 11/20, 11/23, 11/35
or 11/40 this ought to work, decrementing SP by two before putting it on
the stack, and on the 11/03, 11/04, 11/05, 11/10, 11/34, and 11/45
SP is decremented by two before being put on the stack, according to my
notes.
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03973
for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:47:41 +1000 (EST)
>From Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au> Tue Sep 7 14:13:30 1999
Received: from caveman.geac.com.au (caveman.geac.com.au [203.30.73.2])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA03969
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:47:34 +1000 (EST)
Received: (qmail 24470 invoked from network); 7 Sep 1999 14:18:39 +1000
Received: from trowel.geac.com.au (203.1.26.189)
by caveman.geac.com.au with SMTP; 7 Sep 1999 14:18:39 +1000
Received: (qmail 12323 invoked from network); 7 Sep 1999 14:26:41 +1000
Received: from fgh.geac.com.au (202.6.67.163)
by trowel.geac.com.au with SMTP; 7 Sep 1999 14:26:41 +1000
Received: from localhost (dave@localhost)
by fgh.geac.com.au?r with ESMTP id OAA21437
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:13:31 +1000
X-Envelope-From: dave(a)horsfall.org
X-Envelope-To: <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>
X-Authentication-Warning: fgh.geac.com.au: dave owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:13:30 +1000 (EST)
From: Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au>
X-Sender: dave@fgh
To: PDP Unix Preservation Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?
In-Reply-To: <199909062356.JAA12397(a)henry.cs.adfa.edu.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.9909071404290.19123-100000@fgh>
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-Witty-Saying: "Tesseract - Enter at own risk"
X-Disclaimer: "Me, speak for us?"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Warren Toomey wrote:
> I've got a few working. cat works. ls and date run, but sort of give
> strange outputs.
What sort of strange output? My guess is that kernel-wise, date-handling
would have changed.
> These executables were written for a PDP-11/20. Are there any significant
> USER-MODE differences between the 11/20 and later PDP-11 models? I'm
> thinking missing instructions, different addressing mode behaviour etc.
Ummm... No floating point (all emulated), and I seem to recall that
it didn't even have multiply/divide; could this be the problem? The
/20 was certainly a subset of the "classic" 11. No memory management,
but users won't see that. Also had some quirks, long-forgotten.
My experience is based on the GT-40, which was basically a /20 with a
graphics processor attached to it (which had a mean Lunar Lander game!).
--
Dave Horsfall VK2KFU dave(a)geac.com.au Ph: +61 2 9978-7493 Fx: +61 2 9978-7422
Geac Computers P/L (FGH Division) 2/57 Christie St, St Leonards 2065, Australia
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04594
for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:30:23 +1000 (EST)
>From Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu> Wed Sep 8 14:43:16 1999
Received: from mpl.ucsd.edu (chiton.ucsd.edu [192.135.238.128])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04581
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:29:58 +1000 (EST)
Received: (from cdl@localhost)
by mpl.ucsd.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id VAA07676
for pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 21:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 21:43:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu>
Message-Id: <199909080443.VAA07676(a)mpl.ucsd.edu>
To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
> From owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Tue Sep 7 18:24 PDT 1999
> Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 17:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com>
> To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
> Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?
>
> > From: Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu>
> >
> > MOV SP, -(SP)
>
> Similarily
>
> MOV R0,(R0)+
>
> won't work as expected on some 11s. I suspect that the even less
> likely case of "mov pc,-(pc)" won't work either :-)
>
> > It isn't really clear to me why one would want to use this particular
> > instruction, however it turned out to hang both BASIC and FOCAL at the
>
> Fairly common when setting up call frames, etc. You want the
> address of where the arguments start and since they're pushed on the
> stack 'sp' is the value you want.
>
> There's a comment in 2BSD (I think it came from V7) where mention is
> made that "we can't do sp,-(sp) because it won't work on the 11/40".
>
> > time. A zero-length patch wasn't too hard to figure out.
>
> Hmmm, interesting. The workaround I saw took an extra instruction.
Abbreviated due to fading memory over the years, but refreshed by some
of the current discussion. The patch was zero-length but involved more
than the one instruction. Something similar to:
MOV SP, -(SP) MOV SP, R0
MOV (sP), R0 MOV R0, -(SP)
The net result being that the initial value of SP is now both in R0 and
on the stack. Without doing both a SRC and DST operation on SP in the
same instruction, which is the thing that is incompatible across different
processor hardware.
carl
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04681
for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:51:11 +1000 (EST)
>From Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu> Wed Sep 8 15:03:09 1999
Received: from mpl.ucsd.edu (chiton.ucsd.edu [192.135.238.128])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04676
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:50:06 +1000 (EST)
Received: (from cdl@localhost)
by mpl.ucsd.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id WAA08055
for pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 22:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 22:03:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu>
Message-Id: <199909080503.WAA08055(a)mpl.ucsd.edu>
To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
> Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:13:30 +1000 (EST)
> From: Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au>
> To: PDP Unix Preservation Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>
> Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Warren Toomey wrote:
>
> > I've got a few working. cat works. ls and date run, but sort of give
> > strange outputs.
>
> What sort of strange output? My guess is that kernel-wise, date-handling
> would have changed.
It occurs to me that really early Unix used a time word in PDP-11 ticks,
not seconds. So it ran out of time a lot sooner than 2038, like maybe
only a year after it started, at 60 ticks per second, 31.5 Megaseconds per
year. This information was gleaned from a Mt.Xinu calendar from a few
years ago.
carl
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04812
for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:28:58 +1000 (EST)
>From "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com> Wed Sep 8 15:40:58 1999
Received: from moe.2bsd.com (0(a)MOE.2BSD.COM [206.139.202.200])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04808
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:28:46 +1000 (EST)
Received: (from sms@localhost)
by moe.2bsd.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id WAA17669
for pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 22:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 22:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com>
Message-Id: <199909080540.WAA17669(a)moe.2bsd.com>
To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Howdy -
> From: Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu>
> Abbreviated due to fading memory over the years, but refreshed by some
> of the current discussion. The patch was zero-length but involved more
It has been a long long ('quad'? ;)) time since I first encountered
the problem.
> than the one instruction. Something similar to:
>
> MOV SP, -(SP) MOV SP, R0
> MOV (SP), R0 MOV R0, -(SP)
Ah, thank you for bringing that memory back to the front of the brain!
If R0 is available for that then yes indeed that'll do the trick very
nicely.
> on the stack. Without doing both a SRC and DST operation on SP in the
> same instruction, which is the thing that is incompatible across different
> processor hardware.
The 11/45 (and 70) behave as "expected" as do the KDJ-11 systems
(11/73, etc) so unless a person had an 11/40 (or a /20) around it
would be fairly easy to get bit by the "feature".
When it comes time for MMU "features" I know of one difference between
the KDJ-11 and the other members that had an MMU (11/44, /70, etc). Was
fun tracking it down but not something I'd want to do again ;)
Steven
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04962
for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:17:43 +1000 (EST)
>From Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au> Wed Sep 8 16:29:16 1999
Received: from caveman.geac.com.au (caveman.geac.com.au [203.30.73.2])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA04957
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:17:35 +1000 (EST)
Received: (qmail 10263 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1999 16:34:56 +1000
Received: from trowel.geac.com.au (203.1.26.189)
by caveman.geac.com.au with SMTP; 8 Sep 1999 16:34:56 +1000
Received: (qmail 1789 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1999 16:43:20 +1000
Received: from fgh.geac.com.au (202.6.67.163)
by trowel.geac.com.au with SMTP; 8 Sep 1999 16:43:20 +1000
Received: from localhost (dave@localhost)
by fgh.geac.com.au?r with ESMTP id QAA24887
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:29:17 +1000
X-Envelope-From: dave(a)horsfall.org
X-Envelope-To: <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>
X-Authentication-Warning: fgh.geac.com.au: dave owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:29:16 +1000 (EST)
From: Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au>
X-Sender: dave@fgh
To: PDP Unix Preservation Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?
In-Reply-To: <199909080540.WAA17669(a)moe.2bsd.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.9909081618240.19899-100000@fgh>
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-Witty-Saying: "Tesseract - Enter at own risk"
X-Disclaimer: "Me, speak for us?"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
> > MOV SP, -(SP) MOV SP, R0
> > MOV (SP), R0 MOV R0, -(SP)
>
> Ah, thank you for bringing that memory back to the front of the brain!
> If R0 is available for that then yes indeed that'll do the trick very
> nicely.
Yep, I remember that now! Often thought it was odd, but it worked
on all platforms.
The convention was that R0/1 were scratch (used to return results)
and R2/3/4 had to be saved (they were the caller's first three register
variables). R5 was used as a frame pointer (?) and R6/7 you know
better as SP/PC.
> The 11/45 (and 70) behave as "expected" as do the KDJ-11 systems
> (11/73, etc) so unless a person had an 11/40 (or a /20) around it
> would be fairly easy to get bit by the "feature".
We had 40s, and used to dream of owning a 70... I learned a lot about
porting Edition 6 to the /23, /60, etc.
> When it comes time for MMU "features" I know of one difference between
> the KDJ-11 and the other members that had an MMU (11/44, /70, etc). Was
> fun tracking it down but not something I'd want to do again ;)
Do you recall the PC-board hack on the sep-ID machines that changed
the MFPI instruction to do something that was expressly prohibited?
Something about allowing a user program to access something else, for
some obscure hack or other...
--
Dave Horsfall VK2KFU dave(a)geac.com.au Ph: +61 2 9978-7493 Fx: +61 2 9978-7422
Geac Computers P/L (FGH Division) 2/57 Christie St, St Leonards 2065, Australia
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05921
for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 20:30:43 +1000 (EST)
>From Wim Fournier <hsmade(a)dds.nl> Wed Sep 8 20:41:32 1999
Received: from amber.dds.nl (amber.dds.nl [194.109.21.10])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA05917
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 20:30:34 +1000 (EST)
Received: from feline.dds.nl (feline.dds.nl [194.109.20.19])
by amber.dds.nl (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25230
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 12:39:41 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: from fatima.dds.nl (hsmade(a)fatima.dds.nl [194.109.20.21])
by feline.dds.nl (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA16806
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 12:41:33 +0200 (MET DST)
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 12:41:32 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Wim Fournier <hsmade(a)dds.nl>
To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Subject: Newbie question
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.90.990908123352.21899B-100000(a)fatima.dds.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Hi,
I am the happy owner of a pdp-11/94. I've got it from our local telecom
provider (kpn). As I am not a specialist on these machines, I would like
to ask some questions:
- My pdp won't accept mains... when I supply power it doesn't do
anything.. I've heard it could be something with the power-supply not
being closed.. but I cannot find what it is.. it's fully closed.
- I've got sdi / tu80 and an other diskcontroller... What type of disks
can I use to boot from?? (disks = floppy / tape / harddrive)
- What about the 2 connectors at the back.. 1 has 3 pins and can be
connected to the mains regulator (or something (a box for switching the
mains)) an other one has got 2 pins and no info...
- Is there some info on hardware to connect at the diverse controllers
(modem / serial??)
GreetZz
Wim Fournier
hsmade(a)dds.nl
> From: Warren Toomey <wkt(a)cs.adfa.edu.au>
> Subject: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?
> To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (Unix Heritage Society)
> Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:56:09 +1000 (EST)
>
> Dennis Ritchie has unearthed some really old Unix a.out
> executables from around 1st Edition - 2nd Edition period: see
> Distributions/research/1973_stuff in the PUPS Archive.
>
> These executables were written for a PDP-11/20. Are there any significant
> USER-MODE differences between the 11/20 and later PDP-11 models? I'm
> thinking missing instructions, different addressing mode behaviour etc.
There's a good table in the back of the more recent micro-11 manuals.
The first genuine user-mode difference that I remember coming across was
an incompatibility in the result of
MOV SP, -(SP)
It isn't really clear to me why one would want to use this particular
instruction, however it turned out to hang both BASIC and FOCAL at the
time. A zero-length patch wasn't too hard to figure out.
carl
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
{decvax|ucbvax} !ucsd!mpl!cdl cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu
clowenstein(a)ucsd.edu
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03173
for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:13:57 +1000 (EST)
There is huge difference between the machines, but not backwards!
The 11/20 doesn't have :-
EIS instructions like div, mul, ash etc
FPU instructions like fmul ...
MMU no memory management of any sort, 56Kb memory, 8Kb I/O page
and hence no user modes, 16 bit addressing
So a program written for a 11/20 should work untouched on an 11/45 except for
some very minor (and ugly) instruction sequences involving using the same
register for both source and destination eg mov r2,-(r2), or jmp (r2)+.
The behaviour of the trace trap and T bit is also different.
There is a list of differences some some of the PDP/11 handbooks (perhaps the
latter architecture book).
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03319
for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:38:29 +1000 (EST)
>From Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au> Wed Sep 8 10:50:39 1999
Received: from caveman.geac.com.au (caveman.geac.com.au [203.30.73.2])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA03314
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:38:20 +1000 (EST)
Received: (qmail 4222 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1999 10:56:15 +1000
Received: from trowel.geac.com.au (203.1.26.189)
by caveman.geac.com.au with SMTP; 8 Sep 1999 10:56:15 +1000
Received: (qmail 27184 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1999 11:04:35 +1000
Received: from fgh.geac.com.au (202.6.67.163)
by trowel.geac.com.au with SMTP; 8 Sep 1999 11:04:35 +1000
Received: from localhost (dave@localhost)
by fgh.geac.com.au?r with ESMTP id KAA21475
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:50:40 +1000
X-Envelope-From: dave(a)horsfall.org
X-Envelope-To: <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>
X-Authentication-Warning: fgh.geac.com.au: dave owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:50:39 +1000 (EST)
From: Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au>
X-Sender: dave@fgh
To: PDP Unix Preservation Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: KE11-A! (was Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?)
In-Reply-To: <199909070110.LAA12638(a)henry.cs.adfa.edu.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.9909081049430.19899-100000@fgh>
X-No-Archive: Yes
X-Witty-Saying: "Tesseract - Enter at own risk"
X-Disclaimer: "Me, speak for us?"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Warren Toomey wrote:
> I also see that unit 1 lives at 777300 - 777316, and the date a.out
> executable does this:
Yep; I read through my own 11/20 handbook, and I remembered that
EAE weirdness.
--
Dave Horsfall VK2KFU dave(a)geac.com.au Ph: +61 2 9978-7493 Fx: +61 2 9978-7422
Geac Computers P/L (FGH Division) 2/57 Christie St, St Leonards 2065, Australia
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03361
for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:43:07 +1000 (EST)
>From "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com> Wed Sep 8 10:49:36 1999
Received: from moe.2bsd.com (0(a)MOE.2BSD.COM [206.139.202.200])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03354
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:42:59 +1000 (EST)
Received: (from sms@localhost)
by moe.2bsd.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id RAA15948
for pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 17:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 17:49:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com>
Message-Id: <199909080049.RAA15948(a)moe.2bsd.com>
To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
> From: Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu>
> The first genuine user-mode difference that I remember coming across was
> an incompatibility in the result of
>
> MOV SP, -(SP)
Similarily
MOV R0,(R0)+
won't work as expected on some 11s. I suspect that the even less
likely case of "mov pc,-(pc)" won't work either :-)
> It isn't really clear to me why one would want to use this particular
> instruction, however it turned out to hang both BASIC and FOCAL at the
Fairly common when setting up call frames, etc. You want the
address of where the arguments start and since they're pushed on the
stack 'sp' is the value you want.
There's a comment in 2BSD (I think it came from V7) where mention is
made that "we can't do sp,-(sp) because it won't work on the 11/40".
> time. A zero-length patch wasn't too hard to figure out.
Hmmm, interesting. The workaround I saw took an extra instruction.
Steven Schultz
sms(a)moe.2bsd.com
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03462
for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:53:48 +1000 (EST)
Hi all,
Dennis Ritchie has unearthed some really old Unix a.out
executables from around 1st Edition - 2nd Edition period: see
Distributions/research/1973_stuff in the PUPS Archive.
[ Actually, I suspect his dates are a year off: they should be 1972 ]
I've printed off the 1st Ed manuals from Dennis' web page, and I'm
attempting to get my a.out emulator, Apout, to run these old binaries.
I've got a few working. cat works. ls and date run, but sort of give
strange outputs.
These executables were written for a PDP-11/20. Are there any significant
USER-MODE differences between the 11/20 and later PDP-11 models? I'm
thinking missing instructions, different addressing mode behaviour etc.
There is no source code with these binaries, so I can't use that to help
debug the emulator. I do have the following processor handbooks:
PDP-11 /20 /15 /R20 1972
PDP-11 /45 1973
PDP-11 /04 /34 /45 /55 /60 1978-79
I just thought I'd ask for pointers here before I hit them for details.
Cheers,
Warren
Received: (from major@localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27104
for pups-liszt; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:10:31 +1000 (EST)
>From Warren Toomey <wkt(a)cs.adfa.edu.au> Tue Sep 7 11:10:25 1999
Received: from henry.cs.adfa.edu.au (henry.cs.adfa.edu.au [131.236.21.158])
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27099
for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:10:25 +1000 (EST)
Received: (from wkt@localhost)
by henry.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.2/8.9.3) id LAA12638
for pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:10:25 +1000 (EST)
From: Warren Toomey <wkt(a)cs.adfa.edu.au>
Message-Id: <199909070110.LAA12638(a)henry.cs.adfa.edu.au>
Subject: KE11-A! (was Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?)
To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (Unix Heritage Society)
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:10:25 +1000 (EST)
Reply-To: wkt(a)cs.adfa.edu.au
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Hi all,
I've just answered my own question. Reading thru the 11/20
processor handbook, I see the section on the extended arithmetic element,
KE11-A, which is ``an option to perform multiplication, division,
multiple position shifts and normalization significantly faster than
software routines''.
I also see that unit 1 lives at 777300 - 777316, and the date a.out
executable does this:
230: TRAP 15 time syscall
232: MOV #177770,@#177314
240: MOV #47432,@#177300
246: ADD #5,@#177304
254: MOV #7,@#177300
262: MOV @#177302,@#177304
270: MOV #5,@#177306
276: ADD #40622,@#177304
304: MOV @#177304,320
. . .
So it looks like I need to add KE11-A support to my emulator :-)
Cheers,
Warren
The sub-disks that one divide real disks into on UNIX systems are usually
called `partitions' these days. But that's not what they were originally
called on UNIX:
- V7 hp(4) and rp(4) refer to `sections' and `pseudo-disks'. 32V hp(4)
refers to `portions' and `pseudo-disks.' Later Research UNIX manuals,
once Section 4 was being edited again, settled on `sections.'
- System V Release 5.0 (the most recent system for which I have the device
driver part of the manual) also refers just to `sections.' (So far as I
can remember, this convergence was a coincidence; I think I'm the one who
decided to use `sections' on the Research side, and I think I did so just
because it was the more graceful of the historic cases, though my memory
is not clear.)
- 3BSD and 4.0BSD follow 32V; in 4.1BSD, the term `partition' appears as well.
The System V preference for `section' lives on in the device naming scheme
on System-V-derived, but the documentation even on those systems just says
`partition' these days.
It looks to me like `partition' came in from the Berkeley world. Does anyone
on the list remember where it came from? Was the new term introduced on
purpose, or did it just creep in in the way language usually changes?
Norman Wilson
Occasional pursuer of arcana
