Dunno. The first I dealt with was the f77 based on the pcc backend. From: TUHS [mailto:tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org] On Behalf Of ron minnich Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2017 1:14 PM To: TUHS main list Subject: Re: [TUHS] fortran compiler, in assembly, for pdp-11 I was not clear, evidently, although part of this is my memory's fault :-) There was a fortran compiler on v6, written in assembly. I was wondering who wrote it. On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 9:34 AM ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com> wrote: I spent a year or so working on this in 1977. I was wondering who wrote it. Funny but: I once had a compile fail on Motorola's MPL compiler, which was written in fortran. It had so many continued comment lines that the 16-bit column number went negative, and I got a fairly obscure error. Anyone remember who wrote it?

Yes. On the Unix Tree the first man page for it appears in V3. The "Research Unix Reader" says it appeared in V2 and was written by Thomson and Ritchie jointly. Paul On 7 Mar 2017, at 20:53 , Dan Cross wrote:

below.. On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:13 PM, ron minnich <rminnich(a)gmail.com> wrote: A one point the DEC RT11 compiler was moved to V6 and V7 (I want to say around 1978 or 79 ish). It was written in a mix of BLISS-11 and PDP-11 assembly, although the UNIX code was moved over as pure assembly. I do not believe the BLISS-11 runtime was ever directly ported. IIRC, the "port" was done by the "Commercial Union Leasing Corp" guys folks in NYC. The assembly code for same was released to the UNIX community - I think on one of the early USENIX tapes, could be the first one, two or three. One of the things "CULC" guys did was they had to write a PDP-10 simulator so they run the BLISS compiler which only ran as cross compiler from a 36 bit system. I remember the USENIX talk about it at the time, somebody asked the speaker if ITS would boot on the simulator - which got a lot of chuckles. As I remember the process, they ran the PDP-10 version of the BLISS/11 compiler under enough of a TOPS-10 (I think) simulator that they could feed it the sources to the DEC FORTRAN compiler. IIRC a recompile on their 11/45 took overnight or something like that. I remember that they said that the process was not interactive. Like Ron, I remember seeing and using the results the process. I do not remember ever seeing the simulator or the input to the process that created the assembly for the compiler. I also do not remember how much of the compiler sources they had from DEC. They may only have had the runtime source and a few files / "enough" of the upper layers to hack it into working "good enough" for UNIX. If you remember when you used it, the switches were parsed RT-11 style because all that was in the code they did not/could not replace. My guess is that was probably what is was. DEC must published the runtime as "open source" and they picked it up and started hacking. But I don't remember more than that. That said, it was "good enough" port/hack of the compiler and its runtime to make it all work. I probably still have it somewhere on 9-track. As an interesting aside, I just saw the lead (Rich Groves) from the DEC team for that compiler last Wednesday at a social function (he has been quite ill and I'm pleased to see him out and about). They DEC Fortran folks really were an amazing crew and that legacy continues. I fear not enough people really know how far back their legacy goes. In the old days I used to kid Rich, asking him if there were more Fortran developers than there were Fortran users. But the truth is, 40 years into my career, while I still don't want to program in it, as a language, it still very much pays my salary. Ron as you know from your days at the labs, Intel would not nearly be as successful in HPC if not for its developer tools and those tools all have the DEC compiler DNA ground up and injected into them. Clem ​

On Tue, 7 Mar 2017, Clem Cole wrote: And it's turtles all the way down! -- Dave Horsfall DTM (VK2KFU) "Those who don't understand security will suffer."