From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <2ca539b9873bc2cd75592dc3b1e40eb8@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Non-stack-based calling conventions
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 19:57:37 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <13426df10802262252m6c6b14dld63c24aeaf89926f@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 658bb410-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> That would be fun, but you'd have to find Exec 8, right?

Well, I suppose, if only because the EXEC subset of the assembler
language was so unfamiliar :-)

But the head of computing at the University of Cape Town used to be an
international expert on Exec 8, so he may still have a copy.

Now that you remind me, "load function in channel" never really meant
a thing to me, so I think I'll skip being clever.

Oh, as for the drum, at UCT we had frequency fluctuations in the
mains, causing the synchronous motors of the drum to speed up and slow
down, causing parity errors.  Given that the exec code lived on drum,
swapping it in under such conditions caused lock ups.  Took many
months to pin it down to supply problems.

++L