Yup, that was Steve Ward's folks in the MIT/RTS group - it was the NU computer work. John Siber did most of the compiler work (funny, Steve Johnson and I were talking about some of that work last night at the UNIX50 party last night). tjt wrote the 68K assembler ward's folks used. I don't remember where the Z8000 assembler came, but I'm petty sure that the Intel assembler and some of the tools other John had brought back from his summers in MH. I think (but don't know for sure) the Intel 8086 assembler was done at AT&T first. IIRC it may have come out of Dale's group in Columbus. I do know Dale's group had done a Z80 C Compiler using the Ritchie Compiler at some point in 1978 timeframe (and at one time I had, but can not seem to find it, in my archives). When Intel released the 386, I believe the AT&T 8086 assembler was updated for the new 32 instructions; although who did that/where was done, I'm not sure. Steve is probably the best source for most of this as he managed the team in Summit doing the different AT&T front and back ends when they tried to centralize the compiler work for UNIX. On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:48 PM Warner Losh wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:31 AM Clem cole wrote: > >> By the time of 4.2 the switch from the Ritchie and Johnson compilers at >> UCB had begun. Remember the primary output of Rms at that point was emacs >> and gcc. >> >> CSRG wanted the different backends for C. ThAts it. Besides the vax, >> Rms had done 68000 and 386 back ends then. >> >> With the original system V, all of AT&T, Intel and IBM paid Interactive >> Systems Corp (aka ISC) to port the System V/Vax code to a 386 ps/2 and an >> Intel reference system that used an ISA bus. This would be eventually >> released in source at the 386 port from AT&T. As part of the contract >> summit supplied the compiler >> >> I know the AT&T assembler with it’s backwards syntax from Intel was done >> before rms did his. He was compatible with the summit assembler. I don’t >> remember who’s 386 backend came out first. I think is was the summit >> compiler but you needed a system v license which UCB did not have. >> > > There's also a fair amount of work at MIT to do Intel code generation for > 8086 (small mode) that was extended by Queens College London (I think, I > gotta grab the tapes again) to do large mode. I've run into this looking > for a compiler for the Venix source restoration project I've been tilting > at. I found those based on a cryptic comment I found somewhere online about > the tech behind Venix that wasn't from AT&T. I don't know if ISC started > with them as a base or not, nor really how the MIT compilers came about, > but they claim to be PCC based somehow. Don't know if this helps you on > your quest... BTW, I found these when I found the latest pcc-restoration > sources didn't have a working i86 backend anymore (there was once one for > Minux, but when I built it I couldn't get it to generate sensible code at > all). > > Warner > > >> Clem >> >> Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not >> quite. >> >> On Jul 11, 2019, at 8:50 AM, Jason Stevens < >> jsteve@superglobalmegacorp.com> wrote: >> >> That would make sense. I was able to find some info on PCC2 here >> >> http://doc.cat-v.org/unix/unix-before-berkeley/ >> >> I'm guessing along with the adoption of emacs the csrg must have been >> further gnu synergy... Or maybe PCC2 just wasn't available outside of the >> labs? >> >> Or maybe by '88 gcc was already usurping many of the c compilers of the >> era. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:37 PM +0800, "Clem cole" >> wrote: >> >> I believe the pcc/386 came out of Steve Johnson team at Summit with the >>> PCC2 work. >>> >>> Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost but not >>> quite. >>> >>> On Jul 11, 2019, at 7:53 AM, Jason Stevens < >>> jsteve@superglobalmegacorp.com> wrote: >>> >>> Does anyone know where the 386 port from PCC came from? >>> >>> >>> >>> While trying to build a Tahoe userland for the i386, it seems that >>> everything was built with GCC… >>> >>> Was there a PCC for the i386 around ’88-90? It seems after the rapid >>> demise of the Tahoe/Harris >>> >>> HCX-9 that the non Vax/HCX-9 platforms had moved to GCC? >>> >>> >>> >>> Also anyone know any good test software for LIBC? I’ve been tracing >>> through some >>> >>> strange issues rebuilding LIBC from Tahoe, where I had to include some >>> bits from >>> >>> Reno to get diropen to actually work. I would imagine there ought to >>> have been some >>> >>> platform exercise code to make sure things were actually working instead >>> of say >>> >>> building as much as you can, and playing rogue for a few hours to make >>> sure >>> >>> its stable enough. >>> >>>