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.)
Does anyone know how to compile gcc-3.4.6 for the pdp11? I use
the --target=pdp11 switch and the compiler runs for awhile then breaks. The
output says it's bulding for a pdp11-unknown something so there maybe
something I'm not using.
Bill
If this helps at all, I've been working (very, very slowly) on a port of
v32 to Intel platforms. At first I used gcc for some kernel work, but
quickly realized that it would be overwhelming to the final v7 system.
Since I don't want to do the work twice, I looked for a different compiler
suite. I switched to the ACK compiler suite and just finished the WinXP
cross compiler work. It has a pdp11 back end, which I have yet to try,
that may be useful.
It isn't gcc, but ir does do ANSI C and the i386 assembler seems to be
pretty complete. Let me know if there's any interest and I'll put it up
on my site for download.
Pat
> Toby Thain napisał(a):
>
> >On 24-Apr-06, at 9:05 AM, Wesley Parish wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco(a)icpnet.pl>:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Wesley Parish napisał(a):
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >It can't be done.
> >
> >As others point out, the program is many times (100x or more?) too
> >big -- likely even gcc 1.x is far too big, but gcc {2,3,4}.x are all
> >meant for large 32-bit systems.
> >
> >However, cross-compilation can certainly be easily done. I have made
> >a PDP-11 back-end for lcc[1] (not quite complete but shows that it
> >can be done), which is an ANSI (c89) compiler[2]. lcc is a much
> >smaller and simpler compiler than gcc, but its executables are still
> >massively outsize for PDP-11 systems.
> >
> >
> Yes, even running vi or csh in Ultrix (in simh pdp11) produced message :
> too big. After setting cpu to 3072K it worked(setting to 4096 K hanged
> the system BTW).
> Cross compilation has also this advantage , that You have better editors
> to Your disposal and You can work faster.
> Well native cc seems to be good enough, using pdp11 in emulator we have
> anyway only hobbyst license .
>
> Andrzej
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Monmouth Internet MI-Webmail.
http://www.monmouth.com/
> I am running linux and I want to devote a
partition to a good working
>old version of linux v5,6, or 7. I have Bob's
simulator and it works great.
>The thing is when I boot v7_rk05_1145 or v7_rl02_1145
which is I believe
>Dennis's donations I don't know how to log out of the
system. I also want to
>make a filesystem for unix and I don't know how to do
that with a pdp-11
>emulator. I want the source so it can be generated
too.
Gasp! I think you have a number of things wrong that
need correction.
First, now what LINUX stands for? Linux Is Not UniX.
Yep, that's it!
While it is true that LINUX is not UNIX, it is similar
enough. It was designed to be a substitute for UNIX,
and is good enough at it that one could argue it fully
behaves as a UNIX now (which would be tantamount to
saying it is UNIX, though it hasn't passed X/Open
certification).
Then, what's in the archive are not old versions of
LINUX, but of UNIX. In the sense UNIX predates and
sheds the field for LINUX you could think of them as
LINUX antecessors, although there is no shared code or
lineage among them.
What you do when you "boot" the old versions within
SIMH is run an ancient UNIX inside a program that
emulates (behaves as) an old computer. You are not
booting your computer. You are booting a virtual old
computer.
Then, to shut down an old machine, UNIX 6 or 7 you
would simply 'sync' the disks (to ensure all temporary
data was saved)and power down the machine. Or at least
interrupt it to the console monitor. Under SIMH you
can "interrupt" or stop the machine by pressing ^E
([Ctrl] + [E], both pressed at the same time). This
will stop the emulation (sort of as if you had turned
off the old machine) and take you to the SIMH command
prompt. Once there simply type in "quit" and you are
out.
Under system 7 you start in single user mode. You can
go to multi-user status by typing ^D. Then you can
login and out as usual. And stop the machine as
described above ('sync' a couple of times as root and
press ^E).
Regarding the filesystem, you don't need a partition.
SIMH being an emulator and the machine (PDP11)
virtual, everything is virtual. So, what you need to
add more space is to add another disk. Not to *your*
machine, but to the virtual machine, and not a real
disk, but a virtual disk. I.e. a file on your *real*
filesystem that you will treat as a virtual disk. Then
attach it to the virtual PDP11 using the SIMH "attach"
command (this would be tantamount to connecting the
virtual wires of the virtual disk to the virtual
computer). See the manual of SIMH for more details.
As for formatting the disk, see the manual pages. I've
got the kids in the bath now and can't type more, but
this should be enough to clear up your mind.
j
______________________________________________
LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo.
Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto.
http://es.voice.yahoo.com
On Apr 29, 2006, at 7:00 PM, tuhs-request(a)minnie.tuhs.org wrote:
>
> I don't *think* that was it - I remember seeing those boxes at some
> trade show later, but this was a different animal - it was really a
> piece of test equipment for embedded processors (actually it might
> have been a socket-level simulator, that you used to replace an 1802
> or something so you could see what it was doing) I think.
It was the Tek 8560 multi-user development system.
Different models had either an 11/23 or 11/73 processor
with their own peripheral interfaces.
Manuals on bitsavers.com under tektronix/85xx
Tektronix had a Unix variant called uTek that ran on a number of
workstations that they produced in the 1980s - perhaps that's what
you're thinking of? These started out with Nat Semi processors, but
later production systems were 68Ks IIRC. Most of them ran uTek,. but
some also ran a SmallTalk-based system and were sold as AI boxes. As
you'd expect from Tektronix products, the graphics were superb for their
day. The uTek boxes ran the X Window system and had Tektronix' own
window manager.
Bill
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:23:19 +0100
> From: Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org>
> Subject: [TUHS] On the subject of old Unix variants: Tenix?
> To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org
> Message-ID: <109A4122-F4EE-4430-B7CC-7EB2A0FC35E9(a)tfeb.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> Does anyone know anything about this? What I *think* it was was
> something that ran on a logic analyser (?) made by Tektronix, which
> had some kind of PDP-11 inside them. I suspect it was actually 7th
> edition or something similar in rather light disguise. I came across
> one of these in the early 80s but never used it, hence the vagueness
> of my memory.
Does anyone know anything about this? What I *think* it was was
something that ran on a logic analyser (?) made by Tektronix, which
had some kind of PDP-11 inside them. I suspect it was actually 7th
edition or something similar in rather light disguise. I came across
one of these in the early 80s but never used it, hence the vagueness
of my memory.
--tim
First off, isn't it true that both these chips are the same or similar?
A short conference paper on the Bellmac-32 caught my eye because it
mentioned the various data structures the Bellmac keeps in memory,
such as process and interrupt control blocks. I'v become interested in
self-virtualizing CPUs (one well-known example being the IBM System/370
and up, running VM) and I wondered if the data structures make the Bellmac-32
a good candidate for self-virtualization. They are not tied to particular
addresses and a supervisor could inspect and alter its caller's data.
I'm still trying to get my head around the theory. So the manuals would
be interesting, but details about actual implementations would be even
more interesting. Perhaps MERT is relevant to this discussion.
Thanks,
-- Derek
