[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 575 bytes --] Hello, I'm wondering about the history of the 68000 compiler/tools. Support for the 68020 makes sense, it had an MMU, but 68000 did not. And it had some design flaws that prevented it from working correctly with the external MMU, the 68451. So why does/did Plan 9 have a 68000 compiler? Did Plan 9 ever run on an MMU-less 68000? thx. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M62b7ac10b0006c58d077c900 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1138 bytes --]
I don't believe a 68000 compiler was ever released by the labs but there may have been one - some blit terminals had 68000s (and maybe gnots?) so its plausable. There was a port of the plan9 compilers to the VAX but I think its sourcecode was lost (jmk found an executable some years). -Steve ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M93c386537b2c045b411b3708 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
The compiler suite has had a few compilers in it which were used for things other than kernel ports. I can’t say about the 68000 specifically, but that would be my guess. The i960 and DSP3210 compilers are other examples. > On Feb 23, 2021, at 21:18, Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net> wrote: > > I don't believe a 68000 compiler was ever released by the labs but there > may have been one - some blit terminals had 68000s (and maybe gnots?) so > its plausable. > > There was a port of the plan9 compilers to the VAX but I think its > sourcecode was lost (jmk found an executable some years). > > -Steve ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M918f214afdc5ea36e829ea95 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
Charles could probably answer this better than me, but weren't the 68k compilers made to support Inferno? -joe On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:18 PM <rt9f.3141@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello, > > I'm wondering about the history of the 68000 compiler/tools. Support for the 68020 makes sense, it had an MMU, but 68000 did not. And it had some design flaws that prevented it from working correctly with the external MMU, the 68451. So why does/did Plan 9 have a 68000 compiler? Did Plan 9 ever run on an MMU-less 68000? > > thx. > 9fans / 9fans / see discussions + participants + delivery options Permalink ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M109e864d31355d12fb3ef3b6 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1181 bytes --] I am speculating that it was to support compiling code for a version of the Blit. 630MTG used 68000 and DMD5620 used AT&T WE3210. gnot used the 68020. On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:18 PM <rt9f.3141@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm wondering about the history of the 68000 compiler/tools. Support for > the 68020 makes sense, it had an MMU, but 68000 did not. And it had some > design flaws that prevented it from working correctly with the external > MMU, the 68451. So why does/did Plan 9 have a 68000 compiler? Did Plan 9 > ever run on an MMU-less 68000? > > thx. > *9fans <https://9fans.topicbox.com/latest>* / 9fans / see discussions > <https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans> + participants > <https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/members> + delivery options > <https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription> Permalink > <https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M62b7ac10b0006c58d077c900> > ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-Ma25c671e619d8a057d82c591 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1651 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1302 bytes --] I think they might have been there for some other reason and then was used for Inferno, which they somewhat had going on a Palm Pilot in some form (not necessarily as the native kernel). If I waded through a ton of archive material I could probably find the latter, to see what it was, but I'm not sure it's really worthwhile now. On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 8:16 PM Joseph Stewart <joseph.stewart@gmail.com> wrote: > Charles could probably answer this better than me, but weren't the 68k > compilers made to support Inferno? > -joe > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:18 PM <rt9f.3141@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I'm wondering about the history of the 68000 compiler/tools. Support > for the 68020 makes sense, it had an MMU, but 68000 did not. And it had > some design flaws that prevented it from working correctly with the > external MMU, the 68451. So why does/did Plan 9 have a 68000 compiler? > Did Plan 9 ever run on an MMU-less 68000? > > > > thx. > > 9fans / 9fans / see discussions + participants + delivery options > Permalink ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M0d6f8b10f10462355ff6de16 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2656 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1973 bytes --] To be fair, I probably should convert my machine with lots of disks with lots of historical partitions into a single tree with the contents just as subdirectories. It's not as though anyone's going to use them as images ever again. They only ended up that way because the originals were in strange formats on increasingly dodgy devices, and it was easier just to copy the partitions across to partitions of newer bigger drives. As an aside, it still amuses me that VN's worm jukebox would now fit on an SD card that I could easily lose. On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 11:26 PM Charles Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.com> wrote: > I think they might have been there for some other reason and then was used > for Inferno, which they somewhat had going on a Palm Pilot in some form > (not necessarily as the native kernel). > If I waded through a ton of archive material I could probably find the > latter, to see what it was, but I'm not sure it's really worthwhile now. > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 8:16 PM Joseph Stewart <joseph.stewart@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Charles could probably answer this better than me, but weren't the 68k >> compilers made to support Inferno? >> -joe >> >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:18 PM <rt9f.3141@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hello, >> > >> > I'm wondering about the history of the 68000 compiler/tools. Support >> for the 68020 makes sense, it had an MMU, but 68000 did not. And it had >> some design flaws that prevented it from working correctly with the >> external MMU, the 68451. So why does/did Plan 9 have a 68000 compiler? >> Did Plan 9 ever run on an MMU-less 68000? >> > >> > thx. >> > 9fans / 9fans / see discussions + participants + delivery options >> Permalink ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-Mf5d48b33b42aa6f6e483a745 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3631 bytes --]
Cool. I had a talk with Bradley (and maybe you Charles) at some past IW9P about mangling the 68k compilers to support Coldfire but I never went forward with it. I had inherited supporting a device that was barely running uCLinux that I REALLY wanted to run Inferno on... On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 3:27 PM Charles Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think they might have been there for some other reason and then was used for Inferno, which they somewhat had going on a Palm Pilot in some form (not necessarily as the native kernel). > If I waded through a ton of archive material I could probably find the latter, to see what it was, but I'm not sure it's really worthwhile now. > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 8:16 PM Joseph Stewart <joseph.stewart@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Charles could probably answer this better than me, but weren't the 68k >> compilers made to support Inferno? >> -joe >> >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:18 PM <rt9f.3141@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hello, >> > >> > I'm wondering about the history of the 68000 compiler/tools. Support for the 68020 makes sense, it had an MMU, but 68000 did not. And it had some design flaws that prevented it from working correctly with the external MMU, the 68451. So why does/did Plan 9 have a 68000 compiler? Did Plan 9 ever run on an MMU-less 68000? >> > >> > thx. >> > 9fans / 9fans / see discussions + participants + delivery options Permalink > > 9fans / 9fans / see discussions + participants + delivery options Permalink ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M5d08695f6eacd2fc934cd50c Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
On Wed, Feb 24, 2021, at 11:26 PM, Charles Forsyth wrote: > I think they might have been there for some other reason and then was used for Inferno, which they somewhat had going on a Palm Pilot in some form (not necessarily as the native kernel). > If I waded through a ton of archive material I could probably find the latter, to see what it was, but I'm not sure it's really worthwhile now. I know what you mean. I know I've read somewhere what that other reason was, but finding it is a historian's job, and I'm no good at being a historian. ;) I evidently didn't read it on 9fans, I just searched my email archive of it which goes back to late April 2011. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M9ab90f17db9f582994723878 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 357 bytes --] I want to thank everyone who replied. It makes sense to me that 1c was used for embedded 68k coprocessors, Blit, etc. Thanks! ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-Mf5c7402508a98c15ab19221c Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 848 bytes --]