[TUHS] Porting 2.11 BSD
lehmann at ans-netz.de
Wed Nov 25 21:56:56 AEST 2015
why can't I just "reuse" my SYSIII linker which has all the support for
segmented and unsegmented binaries what a.out does not support. The Zilog
format is called s.out.
I thought I could teach the BSD kernel how to execute s.out binaries
(how to execute them is already there in my SYSIII sources) and I could
just reuse the ld and sld (for segmented programms) from my SYSIII?
Please check the header for all the magics currently supported.
So why should I use the COFF assembler at all? I plan to do the development
on my current SYSIII-System where I have all the toolchain available....
I still don't see the need of an cross-compiler-environment while I have
the real hardware there capable of compiling my code.... I would just go
and fill up the BSD kernel with functionality, reboot the system, load the
kernel and do that until it goes up and tries to mount rootfs. When
this happens, I'll go and teach my boot0-loader UFS and start creating an
UFS harddisk and put the kernel onto that. Until that point I could even
test all my stuff on my SYSIII-Filesystem. And I guess it will be LOTS of
time until I reach the step when the rootfs is being accessed.
Nick Downing <downing.nick at gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh yeah, the other thing i was going to say was you'd be well advised to
> use the "ld" that comes with 2.11bsd, which generates a.out (a header of
> about 16 bytes followed by the raw code and data segments), as well as its
> somewhat primitive *.o file format (which is an a.out executable followed
> by relocation and linkage tables, so *.o objects are actually executable if
> they contain a main() function and no unresolved linkage).
> What you could do is create a small converter that changes your COFF or
> whatever objects into the right format. Then everything will just work(tm).
> The linker itself is a bit hard to modify IIRC, it's a split I/D executable
> that basically constructs the output executable in its D address space so
> memory is a bit tight and some tricks are used like doing separate passes
> for code and data.
> Having said all that, I think in my case I took a simple Z80 assembler and
> linker that were open sourced and not too horrible internally, and
> understood Intel HEX records, and then I simply had the IAR compiler (a
> commercial product) generate assembly and I didn't use the IAR assembler or
> linker. Then I modified the linker to create a either an original style
> (non split I/D) a.out executable or a special extended a.out executable
> that was similar to split I/D except the instructions were in multiple
> pages 4kbytes in size and the data was up to 56kbytes in size, so they
> could share the 64kbyte logical address space (the first 4kbytes was
> permanently mapped regardless of context switches and contained interrupt
> and trap handlers).
> You probably won't need to go to the above extremes, but you could easily
> modify my linker to create normal a.out executables with/without split I/D
> if you're wanting to use HEX records as the input rather than 2.11bsd's *.o
> files. Only thing is it's a cross linker, the code is quite simple but it
> won't link big executables from a small address space the way 2.11bsd "ld"
> would do.
> On 25/11/2015 10:26 PM, downing.nick at gmail.com wrote:
>> According to this:
>> You could use only segment 0 and program the code MMU to point segment 0
>> to some physical address and the data and stack MMUs to point segment 0 to
>> some other physical address and you have a split I/D system capable of
>> running 2.11bsd assuming the compiler knows nothing of segments as you
>> said. Or, as outlined in my previous posts you can use a compiler that has
>> 23-bit pointers and understands how to output the high 7 bits as the
>> segment and the low 16 bits as the logical address each time it
>> dereferences a pointer (if such a compiler exists) and port 4.3bsd.
>> On 25/11/2015 9:15 PM, "Oliver Lehmann" <lehmann at ans-netz.de> wrote:
>>> Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org> wrote:
>>> On 11/23/15 12:40 AM, Erik E. Fair wrote:
>>>>> The undergrads who used that system to learn Unix ported many
>>>>> a BSD
>>>>> utility to that system (at least the ones that weren't too RAM-hungry),
>>>>> starting with BerkNet so we could move files around easily & have
>>>> That reminds me that you are going to run into utilities that use the
>>>> overlaying ld that jumps through hoops to get large programs (vi) to run
>>>> in a 16 bit address space.
>>> Good point. I was also thinking if 2.11 is realy the right choice to use
>>> for porting. From what I understood:
>>> - The PDP11 can only access up to 64KB address space.
>>> - 2.11 uses overlay to "show" and "hide" memory into this 64K address
>>> A Z8001 can address up to 128 segments of 64KB. Means, a single array can
>>> only be up to 64KB, but you can have 8MB of memory per "section". My
>>> has 3 MMUs while one is dedicated to the code section and one to the data
>>> section. So my Code section can be max up to 8MB and my data section can
>>> up to additional 8MB. Currently my system has up to 5.5MB of RAM (but can
>>> be upgraded to 16MB easily)
>>> I was thinking if 4.3 BSD would be better to port as the whole overlay
>>> which is implemented in 2.11 could make 2.11 maybe to complex to port? I
>>> mean, all this overlay logic would not be needed for the Z8001 and it
>>> would not even work. (remember - I plan to use my existing SYSIII compiler
>>> which knows nothing about overlaying!)
>>> What I understand for 4.3 BSD is, that it is meant to run on machines with
>>> a memory configuration where the memory is adressable in "one block" which
>>> is of course not true for the Z8001. But - the compiler/assembler handles
>>> all this adressing for C code so why should it be imported on how the is
>>> addressed internaly?
>>> Additionaly, my system has NO floating point support. The current SYSIII
>>> uses a lengthy floating point emulation Assembler Source to "work around"
>>> I saw, that 2.11 also has some FPU-emulation. What about 4.3?
>>> Could 4.3 be a better choice? If so - which 4.3 should I use?
>>> In general - I'm looking for a good target OS. It should be not too
>>> complex (-> "modern") but should provide a TCP/IP stack which is my
>>> main motivation in porting at all.
>>> I'll dig through my archives and see if there was a Z8000 version of pcc
>>>> in the MIT compiler kit.
>>> That would be great - maybe you could also answer my private mail about
>>> the Onyx C8002 I sent you some days ago ;)
>>> The compilers for Z8000 I found so far where either able to address 64K
>>> only, or where able to only generate COFF-format objects which I can't
>>> link on my SYSIII...
>>> TUHS mailing list
>>> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
More information about the TUHS