[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Jose R Valverde]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2957 bytes --]

>   I am running linux and I want to devote a
partition to a good working
>old version of linux v5,6, or 7. I have Bob's
simulator and it works great.
>The thing is when I boot v7_rk05_1145 or v7_rl02_1145
which is I believe
>Dennis's donations I don't know how to log out of the
system. I also want to
>make a filesystem for unix and I don't know how to do
that with a pdp-11
>emulator. I want the source so it can be generated
too.

Gasp! I think you have a number of things wrong that
need correction.

First, now what LINUX stands for? Linux Is Not UniX.
Yep, that's it!

While it is true that LINUX is not UNIX, it is similar
enough. It was designed to be a substitute for UNIX,
and is good enough at it that one could argue it fully
behaves as a UNIX now (which would be tantamount to
saying it is UNIX, though it hasn't passed X/Open
certification).

Then, what's in the archive are not old versions of
LINUX, but of UNIX. In the sense UNIX predates and
sheds the field for LINUX you could think of them as
LINUX antecessors, although there is no shared code or
lineage among them.

What you do when you "boot" the old versions within
SIMH is run an ancient UNIX inside a program that
emulates (behaves as) an old computer. You are not
booting your computer. You are booting a virtual old
computer.

Then, to shut down an old machine, UNIX 6 or 7 you
would simply 'sync' the disks (to ensure all temporary
data was saved)and power down the machine. Or at least
interrupt it to the console monitor. Under SIMH you
can "interrupt" or stop the machine by pressing ^E
([Ctrl] + [E], both pressed at the same time). This
will stop the emulation (sort of as if you had turned
off the old machine) and take you to the SIMH command
prompt. Once there simply type in "quit" and you are
out.

Under system 7 you start in single user mode. You can
go to multi-user status by typing ^D. Then you can
login and out as usual. And stop the machine as
described above ('sync' a couple of times as root and
press ^E).

Regarding the filesystem, you don't need a partition.
SIMH being an emulator and the machine (PDP11)
virtual, everything is virtual. So, what you need to
add more space is to add another disk. Not to *your*
machine, but to the virtual machine, and not a real
disk, but a virtual disk. I.e. a file on your *real*
filesystem that you will treat as a virtual disk. Then
attach it to the virtual PDP11 using the SIMH "attach"
command (this would be tantamount to connecting the
virtual wires of the virtual disk to the virtual
computer). See the manual of SIMH for more details.

As for formatting the disk, see the manual pages. I've
got the kids in the bath now and can't type more, but
this should be enough to clear up your mind.

                                   j



		
______________________________________________ 
LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. 
Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. 
http://es.voice.yahoo.com

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[A. Wik]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Jose R Valverde wrote:

> Gasp! I think you have a number of things wrong that
> need correction.
> 
> First, now what LINUX stands for? Linux Is Not UniX.
> Yep, that's it!

I'm not sure whether you're kidding about that,
but Linux is not an acronym - it's a pun on Unix
and on Linus (the first name of the author).

-aw

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <20060502170530.S78098 at dynamite.narpes.com>
            "A. Wik" <aw at aw.gs> writes:
: On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Jose R Valverde wrote:
: 
: > Gasp! I think you have a number of things wrong that
: > need correction.
: > 
: > First, now what LINUX stands for? Linux Is Not UniX.
: > Yep, that's it!
: 
: I'm not sure whether you're kidding about that,
: but Linux is not an acronym - it's a pun on Unix
: and on Linus (the first name of the author).

"Linux is Not UniX" is a corruption of Gnu: Gnu is Not Unix...

Warner

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Bill Cunningham]

    Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It
would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work
with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would
compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as
they don't work much anymore.

Bill

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Peter Jeremy]

On Sun, 2006-Apr-23 19:27:55 -0400, Bill Cunningham wrote:
>    Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes?

What do you mean by "old unixes"?  32V or 4BSD would be trivial.  2BSD
or V7 (or earlier) would be virtually impossible.  gcc was born in a
32-bit world and there's no way you will get it to work natively on a
16-bit host (though it does have a PDP-11 backend):  Both the code and
data structures assume a large memory space and are not amenable to
using overlays.

If you really wanted to run gcc on a PDP-11, the easiest (though very
slow) solution would be to build a simple 32-bit virtual machine that
runs on the PDP-11 and run gcc within it.

> A C compiler that would work with modern c89 or c99.

As far as I can tell, C99 was deliberately designed to make it
impossible to build a simple C compiler.

-- 
Peter Jeremy

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Michael Davidson]

Bill Cunningham wrote:

>    Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It
>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work
>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would
>compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as
>they don't work much anymore.
>  
>
By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7
for the PDP-11.

Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at
least to some extent, so you can already do cross development
targeted at the PDP-11.

Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost
certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many,
*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at
least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it
isimply wouldn't be gcc any more.

I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs"
wouldn't fit either ...

Michael Davidson

[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for
 ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ]

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Andrzej Popielewicz]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1482 bytes --]

Michael Davidson napisał(a):

>Bill Cunningham wrote:
>
>  
>
>>   Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It
>>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would work
>>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that would
>>compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for safekeeping as
>>they don't work much anymore.
>> 
>>
>>    
>>
>By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7
>for the PDP-11.
>
>Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at
>least to some extent, so you can already do cross development
>targeted at the PDP-11.
>
>Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost
>certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many,
>*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at
>least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it
>isimply wouldn't be gcc any more.
>
>I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs"
>wouldn't fit either ...
>
>Michael Davidson
>
>[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for
> ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ]
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>TUHS mailing list
>TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
>https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>  
>
What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32 
bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS.
Perhaps DeJorie could help.

Andrzej

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Peter Jeremy]

On Mon, 2006-Apr-24 09:33:34 +0200, Andrzej Popielewicz wrote:
>What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32 
>bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS.

Won't work.  http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/v2faq/faq3_5.html states:
"3.5 Can I run it on a 286?

 Q: Why can't I run DJGPP on my 286? It has protected mode also....

 A: True, but the protected mode isn't an issue here.  Gcc doesn't care
 much about memory protection, but it does care to run on a 32-bit
 processor, which the 286 isn't.  A 386 or better CPU really is
 required."

-- 
Peter Jeremy

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Wesley Parish]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2621 bytes --]

djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit 
operating environment on a 32-bit machine.  go32 is Delorie's own DOS extender 
- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same kind of 
trick. 
 
If the purpose is to run a 32-bit Unix C compiler in a 16-bit Unix operating 
environment on a 16-bit machine, it just won't work.  I've never heard of 
anyone ever running djgpp on a 286, either. 
 
Just my 0.02c 
 
Wesley Parish 
 
Quoting Andrzej Popielewicz <vasco at icpnet.pl>: 
 
> Michael Davidson napisał(a): 
>  
> >Bill Cunningham wrote: 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> >> Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes? It 
> >>would have to be a very scaled down version. A C compiler that would 
> work 
> >>with modern c89 or c99. Something to get a C compiler working that 
> would 
> >>compile todays programs. The old C compilers can be kept for 
> safekeeping as 
> >>they don't work much anymore. 
> >>  
> >> 
> >>  
> >> 
> >By "the old unixes" I assume that you mean things like V6 and V7 
> >for the PDP-11. 
> > 
> >Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at 
> >least to some extent, so you can already do cross development 
> >targeted at the PDP-11. 
> > 
> >Trying to actually host gcc on a 16 bit UNIX system is almost 
> >certainly a completely futile and pointless exercise - it is many, 
> >*many* times too big and I am pretty sure that it assumes at 
> >least a 32 bit host - if you cut it down enough so that it fit it 
> >isimply wouldn't be gcc any more. 
> > 
> >I suspect that you would also find that most of "todays programs" 
> >wouldn't fit either ... 
> > 
> >Michael Davidson 
> > 
> >[ and, actually, the old C compiuers still work just fine for 
> > ompiling the code that they were priginally intended for ] 
> > 
> > 
> >_______________________________________________ 
> >TUHS mailing list 
> >TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org 
> >https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuh s 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> What about creating "old unix" version of djgpp. djgpp compiler is 32  
> bit "gcc" running in 16 bit DOS. 
> Perhaps DeJorie could help. 
>  
> Andrzej 
> _______________________________________________ 
> TUHS mailing list 
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org 
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs 
>   
 
 
 
"Sharpened hands are happy hands. 
"Brim the tinfall with mirthful bands"  
- A Deepness in the Sky, Vernor Vinge 
 
"I me.  Shape middled me.  I would come out into hot!"  
I from the spicy that day was overcasked mockingly - it's a symbol of the  
other horizon. - emacs : meta x dissociated-press 

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Andrzej Popielewicz]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 986 bytes --]

Wesley Parish napisał(a):

>djggp relies on a DOS extender to run its 32-bit programs in a 16-bit 
>operating environment on a 32-bit machine.  go32 is Delorie's own DOS extender 
>- OpenWatcom offers at least two other DOS extenders to pull the same kind of 
>trick. 
>  
>
I know that, because I have used djgpp for a quite lot of time.

I thought , that Bill wanted to "scale down" gcc compiler to 16 bit 
environment, and probably djgpp could be a good starting point.
I understand , that gcc is not "directly" portable.But because gcc can 
create pdp code in cross compile environment, perhaps it is not impossible .

BTW I have just ported Bob Supnik pdp11 emulator to Coherent 4.2.10 and 
it seems to work(compile works etc). Coherent being 32 bit for 386 
processors has nonetheless 286 support builtin in kernel, so it seems to 
be good environment for this simulator (?).
I have the same problem as Bill, I have to kill pdp11 process on another 
console to exit.


Andrzej

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[Lars Brinkhoff]

Michael Davidson <michael_davidson at pacbell.net> writes:
> Bill Cunningham wrote:
> > Has anyone thought of or tried to port the gcc to the old unixes?
> Both gcc and GNU binutils already support PDP-11 targets, at
> least to some extent, so you can already do cross development
> targeted at the PDP-11.

I did the PDP-11 binutils stuff.  It was made just for fun, so it's
not very well tested, but most of the basic stuff should be quite ok.

As for GCC, I don't think the PDP-11 back end is in good shape.  I
haven't checked, but it could have been dropped from later releases,
because the last few years, the GCC team has been busy pruning their
source tree from old cruft.

[TUHS] gcc-3.4.6 and old unix

[John Cowan]

Lars Brinkhoff scripsit:

> As for GCC, I don't think the PDP-11 back end is in good shape.  I
> haven't checked, but it could have been dropped from later releases,
> because the last few years, the GCC team has been busy pruning their
> source tree from old cruft.

http://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html claims that "pdp11" is a supported
target, with these caveats:  narrow integer registers (duh), no IEEE
floats (duh), uses cc0 preprocessor, does not use define_peephole,
does not define prologue and/or epilogue RTL expanders, does not use
define_constants, and no ELF support.

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan    cowan at ccil.org
SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should
be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake,
buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed
in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the
witch is dead."  --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev