TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

4 participants
6478 discussions

by Warren Toomey

In article by Lord Isildur: > hello, > > alas, i do not have an account on the PUPS Archive machine! could i have one? > i remember vaguely something about requiring pgp-signed stuff, and i dont > use pgp, and so dont have a public (or any other) key. > isildur Here's the policy for the machine holding the PUPS Archive: + People with UNIX source licenses can get at least guest FTP access to the archive, with S/Key as the authentication mechanism. + People with UNIX source licenses, and who either help to maintain the archive, or who have volunteered to distribute the archive, can get ssh access to the machine. + No telnet access, no e-mail. The box runs with `reserved tolerance' from the real system administrators :-) If you fall into either category, and can prove you have a UNIX source license, then I can either PGP e-mail you, or fax you, the access details. Apologies for the cross-post to the 3 old UNIX-related mailing lists! Cheers, Warren

25 years, 7 months

Ptr to a Vax simulator

by Warren Toomey

Just FYI: http://www.forest-edge.net/evax.html Warren

25 years, 7 months

History of the BSD

by Warren Toomey

All, I just found this on-line article from Kirk McKusick on the history of BSD. http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/kirkmck.html Warren

25 years, 7 months

Re: Unisys 5000 / 7000 manual set

by Warren Toomey

In article by johna(a)babel.apana.org.au: > Hi Warren, > I have a set (11 I think) of manuals for the Unisys 5000 / 7000 series > which I'd be happy to give away. Not sure if they are of historical > interest (too recent, perhaps) or if it was a landmark computer ... > > Anyway, I'd be happy to donate them to the Unix archive if you're > interested. I'm in Sydney, North Ryde, and would be happy to pass them > on next time we're in earshot of each other Actually, your email made me think: if I collect _erverything_ offered to me, then I _will_ run out of room soon. So, how about the idea of a register? You tell me what you have & your contact details. I put up a web page with the stuff, your name, and your contact details if you are happy. Then, if people want access to them, they can contact you. Or, if you'd rather not have your contact details on the web, they can contact me. And if you feel like getting rid of them, you can email me and I'll see if anybody wants them. Let me know what you think. P.S I'm cc'ing this to the PUPS mail list for similar comments. Cheers, Warren

25 years, 7 months

Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?

by Steven M. Schultz

Hi - > From: Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au> > Do you recall the PC-board hack on the sep-ID machines that changed No, I do not recall seeing a PCB hack (hacking on an 11/70 was frowned upon ;)) > the MFPI instruction to do something that was expressly prohibited? But I do know what that 'something' was. In "user" or "supervisor" mode MPFI functioned as "MFPD" - a user program could not read its own I(nstruction) space. Only for "kernel" mode did MFPI access the I space. > Something about allowing a user program to access something else, for > some obscure hack or other... It was aimed at providing "execute only" code - a program could "run" but not "read" its code space. This caused problems though if trap handlers (floating point exception handling comes to mind) needed to retrieve the faulted instruction for inspection/analysis. Thus in 2BSD there is a system call that programs can issue to request the KERNEL to do the 'mfpi' for them and return the value. Steven Schultz sms(a)moe.2bsd.com Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA10091 for pups-liszt; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 19:48:18 +1000 (EST) >From Johnny Billquist <bqt(a)Update.UU.SE> Thu Sep 9 19:58:19 1999 Received: from Zeke.Update.UU.SE (IDENT:2026@Zeke.Update.UU.SE [130.238.11.14]) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA10087 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 19:48:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from localhost (bqt@localhost) by Zeke.Update.UU.SE (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA22975; Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:58:20 +0200 Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:58:19 +0200 (MET DST) From: Johnny Billquist <bqt(a)Update.UU.SE> To: Warren Toomey <wkt(a)cs.adfa.edu.au> cc: Unix Heritage Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au> Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45? In-Reply-To: <199909062356.JAA12397(a)henry.cs.adfa.edu.au> Message-ID: <Pine.VUL.3.93.990909115534.22939A-100000(a)Zeke.Update.UU.SE> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Warren Toomey wrote: > These executables were written for a PDP-11/20. Are there any significant > USER-MODE differences between the 11/20 and later PDP-11 models? I'm > thinking missing instructions, different addressing mode behaviour etc. As far as I can remember, there aren't any huge differences. However, some stuff behave differently in the 11/20. On the other hand, some stuff behave differently in just about every implementation... Condition flags on some instructions specifically. And the 11/20 might have had some limitations on using the PC which differed as well. I have a processor handbook for the "modern" -11s, which has a chart with all differences between different models. I started writing it down, to place in the PDP-11 FAQ, but haven't come that far yet... Johnny Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus || on a psychedelic trip email: bqt(a)update.uu.se || Reading murder books pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

25 years, 7 months

Re: KE11-A! (was Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?)

by johnh＠psych.usyd.edu.au

Are, I was afraid of that. The KE11-A wasn't a real CPU option, but was a peripheral that sat on the Unibus Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03506 for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:58:18 +1000 (EST) >From Tim Shoppa <SHOPPA(a)trailing-edge.com> Wed Sep 8 11:12:00 1999 Received: from timaxp.trailing-edge.com (timaxp.trailing-edge.com [63.73.218.130]) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA03501 for <PUPS(a)MINNIE.CS.ADFA.edu.AU>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:58:10 +1000 (EST) Received: by timaxp.trailing-edge.com for PUPS(a)MINNIE.CS.ADFA.edu.AU; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 21:12:00 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 21:12:00 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa <SHOPPA(a)trailing-edge.com> To: PUPS(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Message-Id: <990907211200.2020016c(a)trailing-edge.com> Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45? Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Precedence: bulk >These executables were written for a PDP-11/20. Are there any significant >USER-MODE differences between the 11/20 and later PDP-11 models? I'm >thinking missing instructions, different addressing mode behaviour etc. Well, first of all, there is no "User mode" on the 11/20 unless you have a KT11 installed. Everything is kernel mode with no KT11. Maybe the executables are trying to go out and directly bang on the console CSR's, the switch register, or the interrupt vectors themselves? 11/20's also frequently had the EAE (Extended Arithmetic Element) installed, to make up for the fact that there was no multiply, divide, or multiple shift instructions in the native instruction set (and wouldn't be until the EIS came along.) The EAE was a peripheral living in I/O space (773000-777316); you wrote the operands to the EAE locations and read the results later. You can put a EAE in a machine with EIS, but generally you only did this if you had some binaries without sources using the EAE (I know of several sites running 11/24's and 11/44's with EAE's today) There are many other differences, especially dealing with "funny" address modes. Generally, folks like me who have to code so that something works across all the -11's know better than to do these things, but back when there was *only* the 11/20 some folks didn't know any better and used them anyway. First, we have instructions that use the same register as source and destination, with an auto-increment one or the other: 1. OPR R,(R)+ on an 11/20 increments R before it's used as a source operand. On an 11/45 the initial contents of R are used. 2. Same thing for OPR R,-(R). 3. JMP (R)+ or JSR reg,(R)+ increments R before putting it in the PC on the 11/20; on the 11/45 R isn't incremented until after the old value is put in the PC. 4. On an 11/20, JMP %R traps to 4; on an 11/45, JMP %R traps to 10 5. On an 11/20, SWAB does not change the V flag; on every other machine, SWAB clears V. (In the 11/20 processor handbook, it *says* that SWAB clears the V flag, but that's not the way the machine actually worked!) 6. On an 11/20, R0-R7 can be used by the program at addresses 177700- 177717; on any other machine, they can't be used that way and will result in a non-existent memory (NXM) trap. This can be used for some neat tricks where you run code out of the registers (which of course is quite non-portable!) There's lots more differences, having to do with T bits and interrupt handling, but I don't know if you're getting that far... and these aren't things that you have to worry about in user mode, anyway. -- Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/ 7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917 Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927 Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03564 for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:03:51 +1000 (EST) >From Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au> Wed Sep 8 11:15:48 1999 Received: from caveman.geac.com.au (caveman.geac.com.au [203.30.73.2]) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA03558 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:03:40 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 4832 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1999 11:21:32 +1000 Received: from trowel.geac.com.au (203.1.26.189) by caveman.geac.com.au with SMTP; 8 Sep 1999 11:21:32 +1000 Received: (qmail 27748 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1999 11:29:48 +1000 Received: from fgh.geac.com.au (202.6.67.163) by trowel.geac.com.au with SMTP; 8 Sep 1999 11:29:49 +1000 Received: from localhost (dave@localhost) by fgh.geac.com.au?r with ESMTP id LAA21756 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:15:48 +1000 X-Envelope-From: dave(a)horsfall.org X-Envelope-To: <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au> X-Authentication-Warning: fgh.geac.com.au: dave owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:15:48 +1000 (EST) From: Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au> X-Sender: dave@fgh To: PDP Unix Preservation Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au> Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45? In-Reply-To: <199909070604.XAA04723(a)mpl.ucsd.edu> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.9909081103330.19899-100000@fgh> X-No-Archive: Yes X-Witty-Saying: "Tesseract - Enter at own risk" X-Disclaimer: "Me, speak for us?" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 6 Sep 1999, Carl Lowenstein wrote: > The first genuine user-mode difference that I remember coming across was > an incompatibility in the result of > > MOV SP, -(SP) Anything involving the same register as src and dst in this way was, err, different... And I have an annotation that the JSR does not behave as documented. Unlike page 91, the sequence is not (tmp) <- (dst) / v(SP) <- reg / reg <- PC / PC <- (tmp). The first ISP code is not present i.e. the SP is decremented first, not saved, and the last is PC <- (dst). > It isn't really clear to me why one would want to use this particular > instruction, however it turned out to hang both BASIC and FOCAL at the > time. A zero-length patch wasn't too hard to figure out. Some sort of frame pointer linking, on an architecture that didn't have separate frame pointers (like the Vax)? -- Dave Horsfall VK2KFU dave(a)geac.com.au Ph: +61 2 9978-7493 Fx: +61 2 9978-7422 Geac Computers P/L (FGH Division) 2/57 Christie St, St Leonards 2065, Australia Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03594 for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:05:14 +1000 (EST) >From Tim Shoppa <SHOPPA(a)trailing-edge.com> Wed Sep 8 10:48:50 1999 Received: from timaxp.trailing-edge.com (timaxp.trailing-edge.com [63.73.218.130]) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA03588 for <PUPS(a)MINNIE.CS.ADFA.edu.AU>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:05:07 +1000 (EST) Received: by timaxp.trailing-edge.com for PUPS(a)MINNIE.CS.ADFA.edu.AU; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:48:50 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 20:48:50 -0400 From: Tim Shoppa <SHOPPA(a)trailing-edge.com> To: PUPS(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Message-Id: <990907204850.202001b4(a)trailing-edge.com> Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45? Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Precedence: bulk > MOV SP, -(SP) > >It isn't really clear to me why one would want to use this particular >instruction "MOV SP" is often-used shorthand for "MOV some-non-zero-value", since no sane implementation would ever have a zero in the SP. So this would put a non-zero value on top of the stack (perhaps as a flag, to be cleared by CLR (SP) when ready) - at least on machines where this was legal! On which machine does this fail, BTW? On a 11/15, 11/20, 11/23, 11/35 or 11/40 this ought to work, decrementing SP by two before putting it on the stack, and on the 11/03, 11/04, 11/05, 11/10, 11/34, and 11/45 SP is decremented by two before being put on the stack, according to my notes. -- Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/ 7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917 Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927 Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA03973 for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:47:41 +1000 (EST) >From Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au> Tue Sep 7 14:13:30 1999 Received: from caveman.geac.com.au (caveman.geac.com.au [203.30.73.2]) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA03969 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:47:34 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 24470 invoked from network); 7 Sep 1999 14:18:39 +1000 Received: from trowel.geac.com.au (203.1.26.189) by caveman.geac.com.au with SMTP; 7 Sep 1999 14:18:39 +1000 Received: (qmail 12323 invoked from network); 7 Sep 1999 14:26:41 +1000 Received: from fgh.geac.com.au (202.6.67.163) by trowel.geac.com.au with SMTP; 7 Sep 1999 14:26:41 +1000 Received: from localhost (dave@localhost) by fgh.geac.com.au?r with ESMTP id OAA21437 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:13:31 +1000 X-Envelope-From: dave(a)horsfall.org X-Envelope-To: <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au> X-Authentication-Warning: fgh.geac.com.au: dave owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:13:30 +1000 (EST) From: Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au> X-Sender: dave@fgh To: PDP Unix Preservation Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au> Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45? In-Reply-To: <199909062356.JAA12397(a)henry.cs.adfa.edu.au> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.9909071404290.19123-100000@fgh> X-No-Archive: Yes X-Witty-Saying: "Tesseract - Enter at own risk" X-Disclaimer: "Me, speak for us?" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Warren Toomey wrote: > I've got a few working. cat works. ls and date run, but sort of give > strange outputs. What sort of strange output? My guess is that kernel-wise, date-handling would have changed. > These executables were written for a PDP-11/20. Are there any significant > USER-MODE differences between the 11/20 and later PDP-11 models? I'm > thinking missing instructions, different addressing mode behaviour etc. Ummm... No floating point (all emulated), and I seem to recall that it didn't even have multiply/divide; could this be the problem? The /20 was certainly a subset of the "classic" 11. No memory management, but users won't see that. Also had some quirks, long-forgotten. My experience is based on the GT-40, which was basically a /20 with a graphics processor attached to it (which had a mean Lunar Lander game!). -- Dave Horsfall VK2KFU dave(a)geac.com.au Ph: +61 2 9978-7493 Fx: +61 2 9978-7422 Geac Computers P/L (FGH Division) 2/57 Christie St, St Leonards 2065, Australia Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04594 for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:30:23 +1000 (EST) >From Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu> Wed Sep 8 14:43:16 1999 Received: from mpl.ucsd.edu (chiton.ucsd.edu [192.135.238.128]) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04581 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:29:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cdl@localhost) by mpl.ucsd.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id VAA07676 for pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 21:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 21:43:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu> Message-Id: <199909080443.VAA07676(a)mpl.ucsd.edu> To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45? Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Tue Sep 7 18:24 PDT 1999 > Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 17:49:36 -0700 (PDT) > From: "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com> > To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au > Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45? > > > From: Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu> > > > > MOV SP, -(SP) > > Similarily > > MOV R0,(R0)+ > > won't work as expected on some 11s. I suspect that the even less > likely case of "mov pc,-(pc)" won't work either :-) > > > It isn't really clear to me why one would want to use this particular > > instruction, however it turned out to hang both BASIC and FOCAL at the > > Fairly common when setting up call frames, etc. You want the > address of where the arguments start and since they're pushed on the > stack 'sp' is the value you want. > > There's a comment in 2BSD (I think it came from V7) where mention is > made that "we can't do sp,-(sp) because it won't work on the 11/40". > > > time. A zero-length patch wasn't too hard to figure out. > > Hmmm, interesting. The workaround I saw took an extra instruction. Abbreviated due to fading memory over the years, but refreshed by some of the current discussion. The patch was zero-length but involved more than the one instruction. Something similar to: MOV SP, -(SP) MOV SP, R0 MOV (sP), R0 MOV R0, -(SP) The net result being that the initial value of SP is now both in R0 and on the stack. Without doing both a SRC and DST operation on SP in the same instruction, which is the thing that is incompatible across different processor hardware. carl Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id OAA04681 for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:51:11 +1000 (EST) >From Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu> Wed Sep 8 15:03:09 1999 Received: from mpl.ucsd.edu (chiton.ucsd.edu [192.135.238.128]) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04676 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:50:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cdl@localhost) by mpl.ucsd.edu (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) id WAA08055 for pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 22:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 22:03:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu> Message-Id: <199909080503.WAA08055(a)mpl.ucsd.edu> To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45? Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 14:13:30 +1000 (EST) > From: Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au> > To: PDP Unix Preservation Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au> > Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45? > X-No-Archive: Yes > > On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Warren Toomey wrote: > > > I've got a few working. cat works. ls and date run, but sort of give > > strange outputs. > > What sort of strange output? My guess is that kernel-wise, date-handling > would have changed. It occurs to me that really early Unix used a time word in PDP-11 ticks, not seconds. So it ran out of time a lot sooner than 2038, like maybe only a year after it started, at 60 ticks per second, 31.5 Megaseconds per year. This information was gleaned from a Mt.Xinu calendar from a few years ago. carl Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA04812 for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:28:58 +1000 (EST) >From "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com> Wed Sep 8 15:40:58 1999 Received: from moe.2bsd.com (0(a)MOE.2BSD.COM [206.139.202.200]) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04808 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 15:28:46 +1000 (EST) Received: (from sms@localhost) by moe.2bsd.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id WAA17669 for pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 22:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 22:40:58 -0700 (PDT) From: "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com> Message-Id: <199909080540.WAA17669(a)moe.2bsd.com> To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45? Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Precedence: bulk Howdy - > From: Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu> > Abbreviated due to fading memory over the years, but refreshed by some > of the current discussion. The patch was zero-length but involved more It has been a long long ('quad'? ;)) time since I first encountered the problem. > than the one instruction. Something similar to: > > MOV SP, -(SP) MOV SP, R0 > MOV (SP), R0 MOV R0, -(SP) Ah, thank you for bringing that memory back to the front of the brain! If R0 is available for that then yes indeed that'll do the trick very nicely. > on the stack. Without doing both a SRC and DST operation on SP in the > same instruction, which is the thing that is incompatible across different > processor hardware. The 11/45 (and 70) behave as "expected" as do the KDJ-11 systems (11/73, etc) so unless a person had an 11/40 (or a /20) around it would be fairly easy to get bit by the "feature". When it comes time for MMU "features" I know of one difference between the KDJ-11 and the other members that had an MMU (11/44, /70, etc). Was fun tracking it down but not something I'd want to do again ;) Steven Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04962 for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:17:43 +1000 (EST) >From Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au> Wed Sep 8 16:29:16 1999 Received: from caveman.geac.com.au (caveman.geac.com.au [203.30.73.2]) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA04957 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:17:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 10263 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1999 16:34:56 +1000 Received: from trowel.geac.com.au (203.1.26.189) by caveman.geac.com.au with SMTP; 8 Sep 1999 16:34:56 +1000 Received: (qmail 1789 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1999 16:43:20 +1000 Received: from fgh.geac.com.au (202.6.67.163) by trowel.geac.com.au with SMTP; 8 Sep 1999 16:43:20 +1000 Received: from localhost (dave@localhost) by fgh.geac.com.au?r with ESMTP id QAA24887 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:29:17 +1000 X-Envelope-From: dave(a)horsfall.org X-Envelope-To: <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au> X-Authentication-Warning: fgh.geac.com.au: dave owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 16:29:16 +1000 (EST) From: Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au> X-Sender: dave@fgh To: PDP Unix Preservation Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au> Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45? In-Reply-To: <199909080540.WAA17669(a)moe.2bsd.com> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.9909081618240.19899-100000@fgh> X-No-Archive: Yes X-Witty-Saying: "Tesseract - Enter at own risk" X-Disclaimer: "Me, speak for us?" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Steven M. Schultz wrote: > > MOV SP, -(SP) MOV SP, R0 > > MOV (SP), R0 MOV R0, -(SP) > > Ah, thank you for bringing that memory back to the front of the brain! > If R0 is available for that then yes indeed that'll do the trick very > nicely. Yep, I remember that now! Often thought it was odd, but it worked on all platforms. The convention was that R0/1 were scratch (used to return results) and R2/3/4 had to be saved (they were the caller's first three register variables). R5 was used as a frame pointer (?) and R6/7 you know better as SP/PC. > The 11/45 (and 70) behave as "expected" as do the KDJ-11 systems > (11/73, etc) so unless a person had an 11/40 (or a /20) around it > would be fairly easy to get bit by the "feature". We had 40s, and used to dream of owning a 70... I learned a lot about porting Edition 6 to the /23, /60, etc. > When it comes time for MMU "features" I know of one difference between > the KDJ-11 and the other members that had an MMU (11/44, /70, etc). Was > fun tracking it down but not something I'd want to do again ;) Do you recall the PC-board hack on the sep-ID machines that changed the MFPI instruction to do something that was expressly prohibited? Something about allowing a user program to access something else, for some obscure hack or other... -- Dave Horsfall VK2KFU dave(a)geac.com.au Ph: +61 2 9978-7493 Fx: +61 2 9978-7422 Geac Computers P/L (FGH Division) 2/57 Christie St, St Leonards 2065, Australia Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA05921 for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 20:30:43 +1000 (EST) >From Wim Fournier <hsmade(a)dds.nl> Wed Sep 8 20:41:32 1999 Received: from amber.dds.nl (amber.dds.nl [194.109.21.10]) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA05917 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 20:30:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from feline.dds.nl (feline.dds.nl [194.109.20.19]) by amber.dds.nl (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA25230 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 12:39:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from fatima.dds.nl (hsmade(a)fatima.dds.nl [194.109.20.21]) by feline.dds.nl (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA16806 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 12:41:33 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 12:41:32 +0200 (MET DST) From: Wim Fournier <hsmade(a)dds.nl> To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Subject: Newbie question Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.90.990908123352.21899B-100000(a)fatima.dds.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi, I am the happy owner of a pdp-11/94. I've got it from our local telecom provider (kpn). As I am not a specialist on these machines, I would like to ask some questions: - My pdp won't accept mains... when I supply power it doesn't do anything.. I've heard it could be something with the power-supply not being closed.. but I cannot find what it is.. it's fully closed. - I've got sdi / tu80 and an other diskcontroller... What type of disks can I use to boot from?? (disks = floppy / tape / harddrive) - What about the 2 connectors at the back.. 1 has 3 pins and can be connected to the mains regulator (or something (a box for switching the mains)) an other one has got 2 pins and no info... - Is there some info on hardware to connect at the diverse controllers (modem / serial??) GreetZz Wim Fournier hsmade(a)dds.nl

25 years, 7 months

Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?

by Carl Lowenstein

> From: Warren Toomey <wkt(a)cs.adfa.edu.au> > Subject: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45? > To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (Unix Heritage Society) > Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 09:56:09 +1000 (EST) > > Dennis Ritchie has unearthed some really old Unix a.out > executables from around 1st Edition - 2nd Edition period: see > Distributions/research/1973_stuff in the PUPS Archive. > > These executables were written for a PDP-11/20. Are there any significant > USER-MODE differences between the 11/20 and later PDP-11 models? I'm > thinking missing instructions, different addressing mode behaviour etc. There's a good table in the back of the more recent micro-11 manuals. The first genuine user-mode difference that I remember coming across was an incompatibility in the result of MOV SP, -(SP) It isn't really clear to me why one would want to use this particular instruction, however it turned out to hang both BASIC and FOCAL at the time. A zero-length patch wasn't too hard to figure out. carl carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego {decvax|ucbvax} !ucsd!mpl!cdl cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu clowenstein(a)ucsd.edu Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03173 for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:13:57 +1000 (EST)

25 years, 7 months

Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45

by johnh＠psych.usyd.edu.au

There is huge difference between the machines, but not backwards! The 11/20 doesn't have :- EIS instructions like div, mul, ash etc FPU instructions like fmul ... MMU no memory management of any sort, 56Kb memory, 8Kb I/O page and hence no user modes, 16 bit addressing So a program written for a 11/20 should work untouched on an 11/45 except for some very minor (and ugly) instruction sequences involving using the same register for both source and destination eg mov r2,-(r2), or jmp (r2)+. The behaviour of the trace trap and T bit is also different. There is a list of differences some some of the PDP/11 handbooks (perhaps the latter architecture book). Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03319 for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:38:29 +1000 (EST) >From Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au> Wed Sep 8 10:50:39 1999 Received: from caveman.geac.com.au (caveman.geac.com.au [203.30.73.2]) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA03314 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:38:20 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 4222 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1999 10:56:15 +1000 Received: from trowel.geac.com.au (203.1.26.189) by caveman.geac.com.au with SMTP; 8 Sep 1999 10:56:15 +1000 Received: (qmail 27184 invoked from network); 8 Sep 1999 11:04:35 +1000 Received: from fgh.geac.com.au (202.6.67.163) by trowel.geac.com.au with SMTP; 8 Sep 1999 11:04:35 +1000 Received: from localhost (dave@localhost) by fgh.geac.com.au?r with ESMTP id KAA21475 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:50:40 +1000 X-Envelope-From: dave(a)horsfall.org X-Envelope-To: <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au> X-Authentication-Warning: fgh.geac.com.au: dave owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:50:39 +1000 (EST) From: Dave Horsfall <dave(a)fgh.geac.com.au> X-Sender: dave@fgh To: PDP Unix Preservation Society <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au> Subject: Re: KE11-A! (was Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?) In-Reply-To: <199909070110.LAA12638(a)henry.cs.adfa.edu.au> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.9909081049430.19899-100000@fgh> X-No-Archive: Yes X-Witty-Saying: "Tesseract - Enter at own risk" X-Disclaimer: "Me, speak for us?" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Warren Toomey wrote: > I also see that unit 1 lives at 777300 - 777316, and the date a.out > executable does this: Yep; I read through my own 11/20 handbook, and I remembered that EAE weirdness. -- Dave Horsfall VK2KFU dave(a)geac.com.au Ph: +61 2 9978-7493 Fx: +61 2 9978-7422 Geac Computers P/L (FGH Division) 2/57 Christie St, St Leonards 2065, Australia Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03361 for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:43:07 +1000 (EST) >From "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com> Wed Sep 8 10:49:36 1999 Received: from moe.2bsd.com (0(a)MOE.2BSD.COM [206.139.202.200]) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03354 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:42:59 +1000 (EST) Received: (from sms@localhost) by moe.2bsd.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id RAA15948 for pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 17:49:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 17:49:36 -0700 (PDT) From: "Steven M. Schultz" <sms(a)moe.2bsd.com> Message-Id: <199909080049.RAA15948(a)moe.2bsd.com> To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Subject: Re: Diff between 11/20 and 11/45? Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu> > The first genuine user-mode difference that I remember coming across was > an incompatibility in the result of > > MOV SP, -(SP) Similarily MOV R0,(R0)+ won't work as expected on some 11s. I suspect that the even less likely case of "mov pc,-(pc)" won't work either :-) > It isn't really clear to me why one would want to use this particular > instruction, however it turned out to hang both BASIC and FOCAL at the Fairly common when setting up call frames, etc. You want the address of where the arguments start and since they're pushed on the stack 'sp' is the value you want. There's a comment in 2BSD (I think it came from V7) where mention is made that "we can't do sp,-(sp) because it won't work on the 11/40". > time. A zero-length patch wasn't too hard to figure out. Hmmm, interesting. The workaround I saw took an extra instruction. Steven Schultz sms(a)moe.2bsd.com Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA03462 for pups-liszt; Wed, 8 Sep 1999 10:53:48 +1000 (EST)

25 years, 7 months

Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?

by Warren Toomey

Hi all, Dennis Ritchie has unearthed some really old Unix a.out executables from around 1st Edition - 2nd Edition period: see Distributions/research/1973_stuff in the PUPS Archive. [ Actually, I suspect his dates are a year off: they should be 1972 ] I've printed off the 1st Ed manuals from Dennis' web page, and I'm attempting to get my a.out emulator, Apout, to run these old binaries. I've got a few working. cat works. ls and date run, but sort of give strange outputs. These executables were written for a PDP-11/20. Are there any significant USER-MODE differences between the 11/20 and later PDP-11 models? I'm thinking missing instructions, different addressing mode behaviour etc. There is no source code with these binaries, so I can't use that to help debug the emulator. I do have the following processor handbooks: PDP-11 /20 /15 /R20 1972 PDP-11 /45 1973 PDP-11 /04 /34 /45 /55 /60 1978-79 I just thought I'd ask for pointers here before I hit them for details. Cheers, Warren Received: (from major@localhost) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA27104 for pups-liszt; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:10:31 +1000 (EST) >From Warren Toomey <wkt(a)cs.adfa.edu.au> Tue Sep 7 11:10:25 1999 Received: from henry.cs.adfa.edu.au (henry.cs.adfa.edu.au [131.236.21.158]) by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27099 for <pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:10:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (from wkt@localhost) by henry.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.2/8.9.3) id LAA12638 for pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au; Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:10:25 +1000 (EST) From: Warren Toomey <wkt(a)cs.adfa.edu.au> Message-Id: <199909070110.LAA12638(a)henry.cs.adfa.edu.au> Subject: KE11-A! (was Diff between 11/20 and 11/45?) To: pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (Unix Heritage Society) Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 11:10:25 +1000 (EST) Reply-To: wkt(a)cs.adfa.edu.au X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-pups(a)minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, I've just answered my own question. Reading thru the 11/20 processor handbook, I see the section on the extended arithmetic element, KE11-A, which is ``an option to perform multiplication, division, multiple position shifts and normalization significantly faster than software routines''. I also see that unit 1 lives at 777300 - 777316, and the date a.out executable does this: 230: TRAP 15 time syscall 232: MOV #177770,@#177314 240: MOV #47432,@#177300 246: ADD #5,@#177304 254: MOV #7,@#177300 262: MOV @#177302,@#177304 270: MOV #5,@#177306 276: ADD #40622,@#177304 304: MOV @#177304,320 . . . So it looks like I need to add KE11-A support to my emulator :-) Cheers, Warren

25 years, 7 months

where did `partition' come from?

by norman＠nose.cita.utoronto.ca

The sub-disks that one divide real disks into on UNIX systems are usually called `partitions' these days. But that's not what they were originally called on UNIX: - V7 hp(4) and rp(4) refer to `sections' and `pseudo-disks'. 32V hp(4) refers to `portions' and `pseudo-disks.' Later Research UNIX manuals, once Section 4 was being edited again, settled on `sections.' - System V Release 5.0 (the most recent system for which I have the device driver part of the manual) also refers just to `sections.' (So far as I can remember, this convergence was a coincidence; I think I'm the one who decided to use `sections' on the Research side, and I think I did so just because it was the more graceful of the historic cases, though my memory is not clear.) - 3BSD and 4.0BSD follow 32V; in 4.1BSD, the term `partition' appears as well. The System V preference for `section' lives on in the device naming scheme on System-V-derived, but the documentation even on those systems just says `partition' these days. It looks to me like `partition' came in from the Berkeley world. Does anyone on the list remember where it came from? Was the new term introduced on purpose, or did it just creep in in the way language usually changes? Norman Wilson Occasional pursuer of arcana

25 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