TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

28 participants
6556 discussions

[pups] Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender

by Wolfgang Helbig

Richard L. Hamilton searches: >The files > >http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/dev/rl.c >http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/conf/mkconf.c > >don't seem to match - mkconf.c wants to generate references to >rlopen() and rlclose(), which don't exist in that version of rl. >What I'm really looking for is the right version of driver(s) etc. It seems that a version of the rl driver that matches mkconf, was never supplied by the bell labs. As a workaround delete the rl entry in cdevsw and the line "int rlopen,..." from c.c. This will give you a block device of the rl disk, but no raw device. Greetings, Wolfgang

22 years, 7 months

[pups] V7 RL02 driver questions

by Richard L. Hamilton

The files http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/dev/rl.c http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/conf/mkconf.c don't seem to match - mkconf.c wants to generate references to rlopen() and rlclose(), which don't exist in that version of rl.c. What I'm really looking for is the right version of driver(s) etc. so that I can regenerate the rl2unix kernel in the V7 image available for use with simh, so that I can add or tweak drivers, eventually adding the dz driver so I can run multiple "terminals" with telnet access. -- mailto:rlhamil@mindwarp.smart.net http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil

22 years, 7 months

db(I) in Unix V6

by Wolfgang Helbig

Hi, tinkering at V6--now I need db(I). It works fine, but three features that are described in its manual page seem to be missing: - The names of the general registers (r0, ...) are not build in, at least db only responds with `?' to `r0'. I can examine the registers via the `$' command though. - The '*' feature doesn't work, i.e. `*_main' gives me a `?'. - I can't specify a number being relocatable, i.e. '10r' gives me a `?'. Is this an exercise to the user? Did anyone solve the exercise. Or did I just not understand the manual page? Greetings, Wolfgang

22 years, 7 months

Re: [pups] V7 setjmp/longjmp

by Wolfgang Helbig

Michael Davidson distrusted: >Note that this means that r4, r3 and r2 get restored to the values >that they had at the time that the next stack frame was established >(ie when the "next" function down was called from the original context) >and that these are not necessarily the values that they had at the >moment when the original call to setjnp returned. Hence the various >caveats about not relying on the value of any register variables >after returning via longjmp. You can trust register variables when setjmp() returns the second time. Then the registers are restored to the values they had when the "next" function was called, that is the "values as of the time longjmp() was called" (quoted from longjmp(3)'s man page. Thus any variable behaves the same, regardless of its storage class. By the way, this is not the case in V6. The register variables-- and only the register variables-- are restored to the values as of the time setexit() was called. (In V6 "setjmp()" is named "setexit()" and "longjmp()" is named "reset()"). Thus the value of a variable depends on its storage class. If it is register, you get the value when setexit() was called, if it is not register, you get the value when reset() was called. This might be considered a bug. Greetings Wolfgang

22 years, 7 months

[pups] V7 setjmp/longjmp

by bwc＠coraid.com

Looking thru the code for setjmp/longjmp (/usr/src/libc/gen/setjmp.s), and have a question. Longjmp seems to make an attempt at restoring register two through four, but setjmp doesn't save them. Where do these register get saved from? Brantley Coile

22 years, 7 months

Re: Patches to improve 6th Edition

by Wolfgang Helbig

some hours ago I wrote: >I ask this, because my system crashes ones in a while. But I changed it >here and there, so it might be my fault. It *was* my fault! So far, I have only found one bug in V6: The size of swapmap and coremap are configured too small, so they might overflow. The sizes don't take account of shared text segments, that produce extra chunks of free memory. In V6 there are 19 pure executables, so their minimal size should be (NPROC+19)*2, or better yet (NPROC+NTEXT)*2, where NTEXT should be set to 20 instead of 40 as distributed in param.h . I don't think this bug ever showed up. It is very unlikely. In V7 these sizes are choosen to be even smaller than NPROC and even with its many pure executables, I don't think V7 ever crashed because of this bug. So, with the only exception reported by Brian S. Walden, there seem to be no bugs in V6 that crash systems. Greetings Wolfgang

22 years, 7 months

Re: [TUHS] Re: Patches to improve 6th Edition

by Wolfgang Helbig

> >In article by Mirian Crzig Lennox: >> This reminds me that I fixed a couple of "bugs" (some outright bugs, >> and some mere behaviours which I didn't quite like) in playing with my >> V6/simh environment, and I'm wondering if there is a place I should >> submit them in case others might be interested. [ .. ] Mirian, I'd love to see your fixes! By the way, you might want to look at http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/PDP-11/Bug_Fixes/V6enb for some changes I applied to V6. Thanks to Warren and Mirian for helping me to undig the "50 bugs tape"! But the "bugs fixes" look more like performance enhancements. Do you know any real bugs in V6? By "real" I mean a bug, that might crash the system. I ask this, because my system crashes ones in a while. But I changed it here and there, so it might be my fault. Greetings, Wolfgang > >P.S Does anybody want to backport vi to 6th & 7th Edition?! :-) Hmm. It's less work to learn ed, so I took that path :-).

22 years, 7 months

Re: Patches to improve 6th Edition

by Mike Haertel

In article by Warren Toomey: > P.S. Does anybody want to backport vi to 6th and 7th Edition?! :-) The 2BSD tape contains vi source code that can *definitely* be built on 7th edition (I've done it, it was easy) and supposedly can also be used to build a 6th-edition "native" vi if you're willing to backport the V7 C compiler (I haven't done that yet). Since many people in 2BSD's time frame would not have had access to V7 systems or V7-ish C compilers, the 2BSD tape also contains a vi binary for V6 systems. I think 2BSD was released around the same time as V7, and had an assumption that many people would not yet have access to V7, and so would want to use 2BSD as an add-on to V6 systems. Since 6th edition didn't have environment variables, the 2BSD/V6 version of vi would get the terminal type from a file that mapped hardwired serial lines to terminal type names. I think it was called /etc/htmp. By the way, does anybody else think that vi should have been upgraded to vii when V7 came out? :-)

22 years, 7 months

Re: Patches to improve 6th Edition

by Brian S Walden

Yes there are other bugs you will want to fix as well if you are using v6 heavily and not on slow hardware (e.g. a simulator). In the inode allocation route (ialloc()) in /usr/sys/ken/alloc.c there is a bug in the placement of the loop: tag. You just have to move it up two line to above the while() loop. See the diff below. This rare Ken Thompson bug was found in 1988 on an Amdahl UTS machine that the hardware finally became fast enough that it caused us panics. This bug existed from (at least) the Fifth up until the Eighth editions from 1127 (BTL research). The Ninth edition had much rewrites in the kernel and the algorthim was changed at that point. Since it was in UTS, it must have been in the porting base of System V Release 2. This code is the basis for the System V filesystem, so it probably didn't exist in BSD releases since they used their fast filesystem (cylinder groups, et al.) which became UFS. It's amazing thet with the amount of eyes on it (via Lions Commentary, etc.) it was not spotted earlier. It would be good to get a collection of all "unreleased" bug fixes that others may have. *** alloc.c.orig Fri Dec 27 23:23:30 2002 --- alloc.c Fri Dec 27 23:23:30 2002 *************** *** 163,171 **** int i, j, k, ino; fp = getfs(dev); while(fp->s_ilock) sleep(&fp->s_ilock, PINOD); - loop: if(fp->s_ninode > 0) { ino = fp->s_inode[--fp->s_ninode]; ip = iget(dev, ino); --- 163,171 ---- int i, j, k, ino; fp = getfs(dev); + loop: while(fp->s_ilock) sleep(&fp->s_ilock, PINOD); if(fp->s_ninode > 0) { ino = fp->s_inode[--fp->s_ninode]; ip = iget(dev, ino); In article by Mirian Crzig Lennox: > This reminds me that I fixed a couple of "bugs" (some outright bugs, > and some mere behaviours which I didn't quite like) in playing with my > V6/simh environment, and I'm wondering if there is a place I should > submit them in case others might be interested.

22 years, 7 months

Re: Re: [TUHS] Re: Patches to improve 6th Edition

by John Holden

> P.S Does anybody want to backport vi to 6th & 7th Edition?! :-) 'vi' definately works with I+D space under edition 7 (11/44/45/50/53/55/70/73) There was also an overlayed version for I space only under BSD 2.?, but it was sooooo slow as to be almost useless

22 years, 7 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