TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

6 participants
6532 discussions

Re: [TUHS] Fwd: Choice of Unix for 11/03 and 11/23+ Systems

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> Now to see if 'cc' works on an '-11/40' Yeah, the C compiler works fine on a /40; so the SOB bug (or perhaps some _other_ one I haven't found yet) must have affected it too. The thing that's odd about that bug is that SOB works _sometimes_ on an /05; the 'rkmx' on the distro tape will boot (which if the SOB _never_ worked, it wouldn't). So there must be a data dependency somehow. John Wilson says the SOB is very optimized, so maybe there's a bug. > then back to the /03. Well, I tried /03 version, and it doesn't work; /etc/init continually restarts. The thing is that _every_ file except mch.s is identical between the '05' version (which runs fine on the /40; above), and the /03 version. So the bug must be in mch.s - unless there's somehow an /03 dependency somewhere else I missed. I looked through init.c, didn't see anything. Here: http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/unix/Mini/mch.s is the mch.s source, if anyone wants to look through it and see if they see anything. It's conditionalized for the /03; there's a very simple header file (here: http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/unix/Mini/03mch.s for the 03 version) to set the flags (so one doesn't have to edit the main file to change the flag settings). I had a careful look at mch.s, before I started, checking all the added conditionalized code; found one that could have been an issue (I was using a temporary register, r0, that had needed data in it), but the rest all looked OK. I have some ideas on how to proceed on working out what's going on, but I'm done for today, gotta do other stuff. Noel

4 years, 9 months

Re: [TUHS] Fwd: Choice of Unix for 11/03 and 11/23+ Systems

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> I suspect there must be an issue with the -11/05 emulation in Ersatz-11 There is. The C compiler on MiniUnix emits SOB instructions. The -11/05 doesn't implement SOB; however, the instruction emulator in MiniUnix (emul.s) is prepared to emulate it. (So MiniUnix should work fine on real -11/05's.) However, when set to an -11/05, Ersatz-11 treats SOBs as NOPs; they fall through without any effect. Without a trap, they can't be emulated either. This caused the problem with namei() failing (namei() calls bcopy(), which has a SOB in it), and probably caused the problem I was seeing with the C compiler, but I'm too burned out to check right now. Tomorrow. Noel

4 years, 9 months

Re: [TUHS] Fwd: Choice of Unix for 11/03 and 11/23+ Systems

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> I just realized that the _first_ entry, #'9', is actually #0 _in the > directory_; u_count counts _down_, whereas the code looks through dir > entries going _up_. Fixed that (kept my own index of which entry it was working on, and caculated the name location in the buffer, and got: chk 0 15 2 '..' chk 1 14 18 '.' chk 2 13 34 'bin' chk 3 12 50 'dev' chk 4 11 66 'etc' etc... and it blew right past the 'etc' entry, to the end of the directory. WTF? > Still don't understand why I can't print the dir entries out of the u > area, though. Now that my brain has turned on, I'll bet that's not _my_ bug, I'll bet it's _the_ bug! If the directory entry in u.u_dent.u_name is all 0's, _of course_ the match is going to fail. Just for grins, I set the CPU type in Ersatz-11 to "40 EIS NOMMU" and... it booted up fine! I suspect there must be an issue with the -11/05 emulation in Ersatz-11, since MiniUnix worked fine on _real_ -11/05's. Now to see if 'cc' works on an '-11/40' - then back to the /03. Noel

4 years, 9 months

Re: [TUHS] Fwd: Choice of Unix for 11/03 and 11/23+ Systems

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> it looks at the following entries: > Anyway, after printing the entry for 5, it goes to 'done' Uh, I just realized that the _first_ entry, #'9', is actually #0 _in the directory_; u_count counts _down_, whereas the code looks through dir entries going _up_. Still don't understand why I can't print the dir entries out of the u area, though. Noel

4 years, 9 months

Re: [TUHS] Fwd: Choice of Unix for 11/03 and 11/23+ Systems

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: jay-tuhs9915 > Are there any notes you can share on how to get to the point you're at? Well, there are three areas where the /03 version needs work, over the /05: - No LTC clock register - No switch register - PS access only via MFPS/MTPS instructions For the first two, the needed changes are identical to the ones detailed here: http://gunkies.org/wiki/Running_UNIX_V6_on_an_-11/23 These have all been tested on the /23. Rather than anyone make the exact same changes independently, I can put up the modified versions of the MiniUnix files for them (low.s, main.c and param.h). For the third, I have an mch.s with a conditional assembly flag that _should_ do it all; like I said, there are also really minor edits to bio.c, clock.c, slp.c, and tty.c. Again, I can upload the mch.s which is already done. I haven't been able to _confirm_ that these work, but it should be mostly good; the changes are pretty straight-foward. > The code is doing a string comparison between the name in the current > directory entry (u_dent) and the current pathname component (in > u_dbuf). The expression in brackets is the relative distance between the > two name fields within the u struct. Yeah, I'd worked that out (the immediately preceding comment in the code - "String compare the directory entry and the current component" - indicates what it's doing, and as my "the term inside the []'s seems to be an offset .. into the copy of the current directory entry" indicates, I'd worked out how it did that. I was still puzzled by some othet aspects of the code, I just included that to give a flavour of the code. > In what way does it fail? Is it simply that namei() doesn't find the > file its looking for? Right. It's looking for 'etc' in the root directory (only one block), and it looks at the following entries: 9 146 '05mx' 8 130 'usr' 7 114 'tmp' 6 98 'mnt' 5 82 'lib' (I put a printf() in the loop; I've added prf.c to the load so I can do that. The numbers are the index, u.u_count - although it's already been descremented at that point, so it will be '0' when doing the last entry - and location of that entry in the directory, given next to it. For some reason, I can't get the entry to print from u.u_dent.u_name, so I'm printing it straight from the block buffer, bp->b_addr[]. I can print the _inode number_, u.u_dent.u_ino as a string, but not the dir entry. Wierd.) Anyway, after printing the entry for 5, it goes to 'done', with u_error containing '2'. I can't see how it could do that. I'm using printf() because I'm too lazy to figure out how to build a kernel with a debugger like DDT included. (We never did that when we were working on V6 at MIT BITD; ISR we mostly just used printf() back then, too.) Noel

4 years, 9 months

Re: [TUHS] Fwd: Choice of Unix for 11/03 and 11/23+ Systems

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

>> Then on to trying to find out why MiniUnix crashes whenever I try and do >> anything significant. > I decided I wasn't up to tackling that, so instead I did all the edits > to produce an LSI-11 version of MX. ... I need to go > back and put conditional assembly flags in mch.s so there's only one > source file for both kinds of system. Doesn't boot, though. So this has turned into a big swamp. I went back and did the conditionals, and I can turn off the -11/03 flag and produce the identical binary to the original mch.o file. -11/05 systems built with that still won't boot, though! So I had made some minor changes elsewhere in the system; e.g. a few files (bio.c, clock.c, slp.c, and tty.c) refer the the PS explicitly (a no-no in the -11/03) so I changed them all to call getps() and putps(), and added /05 versions of those to mch.s; so I backed them out, and re-built the system using the original binaries of those; _still_ won't boot. I then tried the original 'rkmx', and that _does_ boot; so there's no mysterious damage to the file system. But now I'm deeply puzzled, since the new system (which won't boot) should be basically identical (OK, not bit-for-bit identical, but close). So then I started trying to see why the new /05 system won't boot; the exec() call in process 1 that starts /etc/init seems to be failing. Digging into that, the call to namei() (in sys1$exec()) seems to be failing? Huh? The file-system is OK (see above)? So I'm trying to work out how that is happening. Which is non-trivial; namei() is pretty convoluted. I can deal with the fact that there are two nested loops using goto's (not the best form, but I can grok it), but then I run into things like this: for(cp = &u.u_dbuf[0]; cp < &u.u_dbuf[DIRSIZ]; cp++) if(*cp != cp[u.u_dent.u_name - u.u_dbuf]) Check out that second line! (And Heinz didn't touch it; this copy is from the V6 source.) I'm not sure I 100% grok it, but I think I get roughly what it's doing: 'cp' seems to be a (moving) pointer into the filename being matched, and the term inside the []'s seems to be an offset from there into the copy of the current directory entry in the 'u' structure. (Which is a constant, it doesn't need to be recomputed each time around the loop, though.) It seems to check most of the (wrong) directory entries OK, but then inexplicably (to me) fails. At this point I'm getting a bad feeling that there could be a sim issue; that could also explain the problem I'm seeing with the crashes, when trying to run 'cc' under the as-distributed -11/05 version.` I'm not a SIMH user, though (I'm an Ersatz-11 person); is there anyone who is, who'd like to play with MiniUnix with me? Noel

4 years, 9 months

off-topic: Nominating Chet Ramey for USENIX flame award

by arnold＠skeeve.com

Hi All. I know this is off topic, but this list is full of the people who can help me with this. I'd like to nomimate Chet Ramey for the USENIX lifetime achievement award (yes, he's aware). I need 2-4 letters of support for this; anyone who agrees that he deserves it should send me such a letter, please (PDF, I guess) and I'll send in the whole package. See the details below. The deadline is October 19; please send a letter sooner rather than later. Let's start by sending me "yes, I'll write a letter" and then if there are lots, I'll pick four. PLEASE reply directly to me; no need to inundate TUHS with mail on this. Thanks, Arnold > Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 16:00:19 -0700 (PDT) > From: Casey Henderson <casey.henderson(a)usenix.org> > To: Arnold Robbins <arnold(a)skeeve.com> > Subject: Call for Nominations for the USENIX Lifetime Achievement Award > > Dear Arnold: > > USENIX offers several awards that recognize public service and technical > excellence in the fields, including the USENIX Lifetime Achievement Award > ("The Flame"): https://www.usenix.org/about/flame > > The Flame recognizes and celebrates singular contributions to the USENIX > community of both intellectual achievement and service that are not > recognized in any other forum. Please consider nominating a deserving > colleague! > > We invite you to submit nominations for USENIX's awards at any > time. However, to help us offer the award this year, we strongly encourage > nominations for The Flame by October 19. > > A nomination should include: > *Name and contact information of the person making the nomination > *Name(s) and contact information of the nominee(s) > *A citation, approximately 100 words long > *A statement, at most one page long, on why the candidate(s) should receive the award > *Between two and four supporting letters, no longer than one page each > > Please submit your nominations to the Awards Committee via awards(a)usenix.org. > > Best Wishes, > Casey Henderson > Executive Director > USENIX Association

4 years, 9 months

Status of Space Travel

by Warner Losh

What's the current state of efforts to get space travel working again? Warner

4 years, 9 months

Re: [TUHS] Fwd: Choice of Unix for 11/03 and 11/23+ Systems

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> At some point, I'll produce a 'MiniUnix ld' on vanilla V6, so I can > build MiniUnix versions of applications there; the first will be the > shell, so I don't have to keep typing 'chdir' instead of 'cd'! :-) OK, that was pretty smooth. I now have (on the main V6 system) a linker in V6 binary form that outputs MX binary files, so I can do things like: mld sh.o /mnt/lib/lib[ca].a to produce a new shell (which worked fine). (I think to build 'mld' all I had to do was 'cc ld.c', in usr/sys/source on the MX disk.) This whole 'futz with MX by mounting the MX disk under V6' thing works really well. > Then on to trying to find out why MiniUnix crashes whenever I try and do > anything significant. I decided I wasn't up to tackling that, so instead I did all the edits to produce an LSI-11 version of MX. Doesn't boot, though; tries to do a panic, I think. I'm too burned out to keep going, I will continue tomorrow morning (US East Coast time). Once I get it running, before I make it available for download, I need to go back and put conditional assembly flags in mch.s so there's only one source file for both kinds of system; I had originally planned on doing that, but I was in such a 'code attack' mode I forgot all about it. Noel

4 years, 9 months

Re: [TUHS] Fwd: Choice of Unix for 11/03 and 11/23+ Systems

by jnc＠mercury.lcs.mit.edu

> From: Paul Riley > So mounting Mini-Unix on a running V6 system I guess allows you to run > Mini-Unix user mode binaries stuff Ah, no. They are all link-loaded to run at TOPSYS (060000), so won't run on V6 native. > Or do you plan to recompile on a stable system? Well, I need to find out what the problem is, first. Still, notable progress: using my 'mount the Mini-Unix RK pack on a V6 system' hack (which woked fine; the native V6 'icheck' and 'dcheck' work on that pack), I was able to sucessfully compile a few tweaked system modules (to get my usual line-editing chars, and turn off that irritating lower-case mode), and then build an OS load which could sucessfully boot. So good progress there. A couple of things I learned: - MiniUnix tools use the 'new' archive format, so the V6 vanilla 'ar' doen't grok MiniUnix archives (e.g. lib1/lib2). I have a 'nar', which I found on the 'Shoppa disks', which can deal with them. (We don't have source for it, but I'll bet the MIT PWB1 system has that; I'll get to that eventuallly. There's also an 'ar.c' on the MiniUnix disk; between the two, we'll be able to reconstitute source for 'nar'.) - Also, the vanilla V6 linker, 'ld', _also_ doesn't understand new archives; so the shell file to build a new system, 'shld': ld -a -x low.o conf.o lib1 lib2 blows out because it doesn't grok the libraries. Also, the '-a' flag, which says 'link starting at 0, not TOPSYS', doesn't exist in the V6 'ld'. I got around all that by unpacking lib1 (using 'nar', above) - it only contains two files - and then listing the files to link directly: ld -x low.o conf.o syso emulo dev/kl.o dev/devstart.o dev/rk.o The vanilla V6 linker of course produces an output linked at 0 without the -a flag. At some point, I'll produce a 'MiniUnix ld' on vanilla V6, so I can build MiniUnix versions of applications there; the first will be the shell, so I don't have to keep typing 'chdir' instead of 'cd'! :-) Then on to trying to find out why MiniUnix crashes whenever I try and do anything significant. Noel

4 years, 9 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

TUHS