> From: Mark Longridge <cubexyz(a)gmail.com>
> It seems like early cc could only use variable and function names up to
> 8 characters.
> This limitation occurs in v5, v6 and v7.
> ...
> That seems to suggest that only the first 7 characters are significant,
> but when looking at other sources they stated that one can use up to 8
> characters.
The a.out symbol tables use 8-character fields to hold symbol names. However,
C automagically and unavoidably prepends an _ to all externals (I forget
about automatics, registers, etc - too tired to check right now), making the
limit for C names 7 characters.
> I am not sure if limitations of early cc were documented anywhere.
I remember reading the above.
Other limits... well, you need to remember that C was still changing in that
period, so limits were a moving target.
> When I backported unirubik to v5 it compiled the longer functions
> without any problem.
ISTR that C truncated external names longer than 7 characters. Probably the
ones in that program were all unique within 7, so you won.
> Did anyone document these sorts of limitations of early cc?
I seem to recall at least one document from that period (I think pertaining
to the so-called 'Typesetter C') about 'changes to C'.
Also, I have started a note with a list of 'issues with C when you're
backporting V7 and later code to V6', I'll see if I can dig them out tomorrow.
Noel
Afternoon,
# /etc/mkfs /dev/rrp1g 145673
isize = 65488
m/n = 3 500
write error: 2
# file rp0g
rp0g: block special (0/6)
# file rp1g
rp1g: block special (0/14)
# file rp0a
rp0a: block special (0/0)
# file rp1a
rp1a: block special (0/8)
# file rrp0a
rrp0a: character special (4/0)
# file rrp1a
rrp1a: character special (4/8)
# file rrp0g
rrp0g: character special (4/6)
# file rrp1g
rrp1g: character special (4/14)
DESCRIPTION
Files with minor device numbers 0 through 7 refer to various
portions of drive 0; minor devices 8 through 15 refer to
drive 1, etc.
The origin and size of the pseudo-disks on each drive are as
follows:
What am I forgetting? I have an image attached, I have modified hp.c to
have NHP as 2.
Is it conflict between rp.c and hp.c? (I patched hp.c to have NHP 2 after
patching NURP in rp.c to be 2).
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
> From: jnc(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
>> Did anyone document these sorts of limitations of early cc?
> I seem to recall at least one document from that period (I think
> pertaining to the so-called 'Typesetter C') about 'changes to C'.
> ...
> I'll see if I can dig them out tomorrow.
OK, there are three documents which sort of fall into this class. First,
there is something titled "New C Compiler Features", no date, available here:
http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=Interdata732/usr/doc/cdoc/news…
no date, but it appears to describe an early version of the so-called
'Typesetter C', mentioned in other documents, so this would be circa 1976 or
so.
There is a second document, untitled, no date, which I have not been able to
locate online at all. I scanned my hard-copy, available here:
http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/history/unix/CImprovements1.jpg
..
http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/history/unix/CImprovements5.jpg
>From the content, it seems to be from shortly after the previous one, so say,
circa 1977.
Sorry about the poor readability (it looked fine on the monitor of the
machine my scanner is attached to); fudging with contrast would probably make
it more readable. When I get the MIT V6 Unix tapes read (they have been sent
off to a specialist in reading old tapes, results soon, I hope) I might be
able to get more info (e.g. date/filename), and machine-readable source.
Finally, there is "Recent Changes to C", from November 15, 1978, available
here:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/cchanges.pdf
which documents a few final bits.
There is of course also Dennis M. Ritchie, "The Development of the C
Language", available here:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/dmr/chist.html
which is a good, interesting history of C.
> Also, I have started a note with a list of 'issues with C when you're
> backporting V7 and later code to V6'
I found several documents which are bits and pieces of this.
http://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/history/unix/C_Backport.txthttp://ana-3.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/history/unix/V6_C.txt
Too busy to really clean them up at the moment.
Noel
Back in the 80s in my University days  I was  using ISPS (Instruction  Set  Processor  Simulator if  I remember  correctly ) a software tool To simulate CPU.  It ran on a Vax  with  BSD 4.2. I have been  unable  to find any reference to It on the Internet . Do someone on this list  know anything offerte this software ?Â
ThanksÂ
LucaÂ
> From: Mark Longridge
> Fortunately we have the file /usr/sys/dmr/vs.c to look at so this could
> be compiled into the kernel although I haven't done this as yet.
The vs.c seems to be a Votrax speech synthesizer hooked up to a DC11
interface. Do any of the simulators support the DC11? If not, adding the
driver won't do you much good.
Noel
PS: I seem to recall the DSSR group on the 4th floor at LCS actually had one
of these, back in the day. The sound quality was pretty marginal, as I recall!
Thanks to the efforts of Jonathan Gevaryahu I have managed
to get the Unix v5 speak utility to compile and execute.
All this was done using the simh emulator emulating a
PDP-11/70.
Jonathan managed extract enough of speak.c to reconstruct it
to the point it could be compiled with v5 cc. I believe it
was necessary to look at speak.o to accomplish this.
Jonathan also states that there are more interesting things
that could possibly be recovered from v6doc.tar.gz
One can look at speak.c source here:
http://www.maxhost.org/other/speak.c
Now had we have speak compiled we can go a bit further:
cat speak.v - | speak -v null
generates speak.m from ascii file speak.v
speak speak.m
computer
!p (prints out phonetics for working word)
which outputs:
,k,a0,m,p,E2,U1,t,er,-1
ctrl-d exits
Looking at speak.c we can see that it opens /dev/vs.
Fortunately we have the file /usr/sys/dmr/vs.c to look at
so this could be compiled into the kernel although I haven't
done this as yet.
speak.c looks like Unix v5 era code. My understanding is that
Unix v5 appeared in June 1974 and the comments say 'Copyright 1974'
so it seems plausible.
I'm intrigued by the possibility of getting Unix v5 to talk.
Mark
Hi,
after carefully examining the power supply and checking the generated
voltages, we were convinced that this wouldn't kill our Multibus boards.
Maybe some of you are interested in our progress, so I though I would
send you an update.
After reconnecting the Multibus backplane, we started the system with
only a CPU board and a memory board. On one of our CPU boards
the smaller (P2) Multibus connector is masked with tape, I'll have to dig
deeper to find out what is deactivated by this…
One of our two CPU boards is currently non functional (the one without
the masking take, this doesn't say a thing on the console UART, will bring
in the scope in Monday to check for details). The other one brings up the
monitor startup message and prompt on a connected serial terminal
(emulator) - however, we are unable to get any characters echoed back.
The serial cable is working, we tried all sorts of handshake configurations.
If we get any characters back (the system is running at 9600 baud, I tried
all combinations of 7/8 bit, none/even/odd/mark/space parity and 1/2 stop
bits), these are garbled and contain mostly "1" bits (0xfc, 0xfe, 0xff or
similar).
The UART itself seems to work (exchanged it with the one from the non
working board - same result), so now I suspect the AM26LS32 RS423
driver to be the culprit.
I uploaded some pictures to
http://s1372.photobucket.com/user/michaelengel/library/Codata?sort=3&page=1
- there you can see that this machine is far from being in any sort of
original condition. Nevertheless, it's great to see it come alive again!
Btw., current versions of MAME/MESS include a rudimentary Codata
simulator. This doesn't do very much so far, but it can successfully run
the firmware ROM code (picture also uploaded to photobucket).
Best wishes,
Michael
On 2014-10-07 03:00, norman(a)oclsc.org (Norman Wilson) wrote:
>
> The 11/70 service manual is all good, but it's definitely not enough.
> Ideally, you should have access to the full drawings, the service manual
> for the CPU, the service manual for the memory subsystem, I seem to
> remember that the FP11 has its own service manual, and I think the
> massbus interface also has its own documentation set.
> Also, the memory system consists of both the Unibus map, the cache and
> memory bus system, and they you have separate documentation for the
> memory boxes (either MJ11 or MK11 box).
>
> It might be worth while to contact the Living Computer Museum.
> I forget whether they have an 11/70 running or just an 11/45,
> but I do know that they collect all the documentation they can
> get for old computers--I saw the room where they store it.
> Whenever they need to use it, or there's some other need to
> access it, they try to make time to scan it, so the precious
> copy can stay in the archive room.
LCM have atleast one 11/70 running. Although they are not really doing
anything fun on it. I hope to maybe help them with that next time I'm
there. I can't remember seeing any 11/45 running, but I'm pretty sure
there are some in their storage if nothing else...
I'm not going to try dragging a lot of documentation from Sweden to
Seattle, though (I'm not even in Sweden myself lots of the time). On the
other hand, I know they have plenty of documentation, so I would hope
they (and/or CHM) already have most of it.
> Since their goal is to have ancient computers actually
> running, they are certainly interested in having all the
> documents (even if you can't get the wood, as Warren might
> remark at this point), including full engineering drawings.
>
> It's also a neat place to visit if you have some free time in
> Seattle. I'm disappointed to have figured out that, although
> I'll be in Seattle for a conference in about a month, I won't
> be able to visit LCM while they're open unless I skip some
> conference sessions ... or unless I can convince them to open
> up specially. Anyone else on this list planning to attend
> LISA and interested in visiting a museum of old running
> computers?
I know of the place, and have known Rich Alderson for a long time.
It is a fun place, and I could see myself working there, if I just had
the right offer. Don't expect that to happen, though...
I'll be there for different reasons in about a month from now. But my
weekends are free... :-)
Johnny
Also, I had this e-mail sent to me from Jacob who is a long-time TUHS
person. Again, he has questions I don't know the answers to. Anybody?
Cheers, Warren
----- Forwarded message from Jacob Ritorto -----
Greetings Warren,
 It's been decades since we last corresponded and I'm delighted to
see that you're still active in the pdp11 unix community! I've found
some free time and have been kicking around the idea of repairing
the11/45 I scored some years ago (11/45 system number 273 from Stanford
University) and installing 2.9bsd on it. You helped me out years ago
when I had an 11/34 and I managed to do it back then, so I have some
hope this time around too, though there are some more serious hurdles
now. Glad to see that a lot of the license trolling finally appears
to be settled and we can have unfettered access to all the good stuff!
Â
 Any pointers to who
has parts and troubleshooting knowledge would be a big help.
 Softwarewise, I was also thinking I'd like to get my Fuji160 disks
working on the machine. Has work like this been done already, or
would you have pointers as to how to go about it?
  Also, has anyone written a miniature httpd for any of the ancient
bsds?
thanks
jake
----- End forwarded message -----
The 11/70 service manual is all good, but it's definitely not enough.
Ideally, you should have access to the full drawings, the service manual
for the CPU, the service manual for the memory subsystem, I seem to
remember that the FP11 has its own service manual, and I think the
massbus interface also has its own documentation set.
Also, the memory system consists of both the Unibus map, the cache and
memory bus system, and they you have separate documentation for the
memory boxes (either MJ11 or MK11 box).
It might be worth while to contact the Living Computer Museum.
I forget whether they have an 11/70 running or just an 11/45,
but I do know that they collect all the documentation they can
get for old computers--I saw the room where they store it.
Whenever they need to use it, or there's some other need to
access it, they try to make time to scan it, so the precious
copy can stay in the archive room.
Since their goal is to have ancient computers actually
running, they are certainly interested in having all the
documents (even if you can't get the wood, as Warren might
remark at this point), including full engineering drawings.
It's also a neat place to visit if you have some free time in
Seattle. I'm disappointed to have figured out that, although
I'll be in Seattle for a conference in about a month, I won't
be able to visit LCM while they're open unless I skip some
conference sessions ... or unless I can convince them to open
up specially. Anyone else on this list planning to attend
LISA and interested in visiting a museum of old running
computers?
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON