Hi,
in the end of May i'm going to recover a PDP11/23, a
MicroPDP11/23 (maybe? i've not seen it) and some other stuff for
our computer museum.
Does someone have an idea about what flavour of Unix can be run,
if this is possible, on 11/23? :)
greets from sicilia, italy!
--
[ asbesto : IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry ]
[ http://freaknet.org/asbestohttp://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ]
[ NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LETTERE ACCENTATE, NON MANDARMI ALLEGATI ]
[ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC, SPAM ]
In the context of non-local file systems - Sun's NFS
in particular - I've seen RFS be mentioned. This was
AT&T's implementattion of transparent real-time (for
contrast with UUCP, FTP, etc.) remote file access.
But that's all I know. Does anyone know of useful
sources of information (or just anecdotes, for that
matter)?
-aw
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/
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
