* [Unix-jun72] more corrections
@ 2008-05-01 17:44 James A. Markevitch
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: James A. Markevitch @ 2008-05-01 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
> I wonder... hmmm. if the V1 a.out header where 12 bytes long, then
> everything would just automagically work.
If you look at sysexec, you will see that the "magic number" for the
a.out header is 000405. That is an instruction that jumps over the
first 12 bytes.
James Markevitch
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Unix-jun72] more corrections
@ 2008-05-01 16:09 Brad Parker
2008-05-01 17:03 ` Tim Newsham
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Brad Parker @ 2008-05-01 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
I made some more minor corrections; turns out the commands in e00-01
around "4;4" are wrong, those lines are needed or the IOT dispatch
vector ends up in the wrong place.
I suspect, in the end, most of the "hand written" corrections should
ignored.
Right now the svn runs and ends up in the idle loop. It dispatches the
first system call (sys exec). I'm not 100% sure but I think it works.
(still some missing pages but I don't think the code hits them yet)
Not sure why it stops in the idle loop; maybe missing hardware.
I had to add KE11A support to simh; I mostly copied the code from
apout.
I'll put a tar file on my web site with the modified simh source.
-brad
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Unix-jun72] more corrections
2008-05-01 16:09 Brad Parker
@ 2008-05-01 17:03 ` Tim Newsham
2008-05-01 17:10 ` Al Kossow
2008-05-01 17:19 ` Brad Parker
2008-05-01 17:10 ` Tim Newsham
[not found] ` <Pine.BSI.4.64.0805011927100.20114@malasada.lava.net>
2 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Tim Newsham @ 2008-05-01 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
> I made some more minor corrections; turns out the commands in e00-01
> around "4;4" are wrong, those lines are needed or the IOT dispatch
> vector ends up in the wrong place.
>
> I suspect, in the end, most of the "hand written" corrections should
> ignored.
I'm suspecting the opposite.. I went through all of the comments in
notes.txt about hand written corrections and read through the code to
see if they make sense or not and it seems like all of the corrections
did make sense in the code and the original code that they replaced
did not. I updated the code to reflect this and added comments to
the notes file.
btw, there are still a bunch of unresolved symbols in the low address
vector tables.. I took a look at the assembly memory dump last night
(and also committed code in tools to convert the a.out to a bunch
of simh deposit commands).
> I had to add KE11A support to simh; I mostly copied the code from
> apout.
This discussion of hardware is making me wonder -- does this nail down
the hardware? The 1ed manuals mention tht they ran on a 24kbyte
pdp 11/20, but that they were eying an 11/45. My reading of the code
was making me lean towards the original 11/20 configuration, but it
sounds like some of these features might be present in the 11/40 or
11/45?
> I'll put a tar file on my web site with the modified simh source.
speaking of modifying simh, we may have to map one of the similar
serial devices in at the dc11 address to support ttys. simh doesn't
support the DC-11, but when I asked on the simh mailing list someone
mentioned that one of the existing devices is very similar with
less support for modem control lines.
> -brad
Tim Newsham
http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Unix-jun72] more corrections
2008-05-01 17:03 ` Tim Newsham
@ 2008-05-01 17:10 ` Al Kossow
2008-05-01 17:19 ` Brad Parker
1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Al Kossow @ 2008-05-01 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
Tim Newsham wrote:
> This discussion of hardware is making me wonder -- does this nail down
> the hardware? The 1ed manuals mention tht they ran on a 24kbyte
> pdp 11/20, but that they were eying an 11/45. My reading of the code
> was making me lean towards the original 11/20 configuration, but it
> sounds like some of these features might be present in the 11/40 or
> 11/45?
Use of EAE is HIGHLY unlikely on anything after the 11/20.
There was a better solution (EIS) for the 11/40 and forward.
The note for the Jan 73 talk mentions they were still working on writing
the 11/45 version, which puts the release well after the code you're working
with.
Still looking for EAE docs. May have to scan an 11/20 handbook to get it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Unix-jun72] more corrections
2008-05-01 17:03 ` Tim Newsham
2008-05-01 17:10 ` Al Kossow
@ 2008-05-01 17:19 ` Brad Parker
1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Brad Parker @ 2008-05-01 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
Tim Newsham wrote:
>> I made some more minor corrections; turns out the commands in e00-01
>> around "4;4" are wrong, those lines are needed or the IOT dispatch
>> vector ends up in the wrong place.
>>
>> I suspect, in the end, most of the "hand written" corrections should
>> ignored.
>
>I'm suspecting the opposite.. I went through all of the comments in
>notes.txt about hand written corrections and read through the code to
>see if they make sense or not and it seems like all of the corrections
>did make sense in the code and the original code that they replaced
>did not. I updated the code to reflect this and added comments to
>the notes file.
Ok, I may well be confused.
Before I took the comments the IOT vector was zero. After I removed
them the IOT vector (34) was correct.
Perhaps the code wants to be loaded at 014 instead of 0.
I put the comments back in - I'll try changing where I load.
>btw, there are still a bunch of unresolved symbols in the low address
>vector tables..
I thought only fpsym was undefined in those vectors.
>> I had to add KE11A support to simh; I mostly copied the code from
>> apout.
>
>This discussion of hardware is making me wonder -- does this nail down
>the hardware? The 1ed manuals mention tht they ran on a 24kbyte
>pdp 11/20, but that they were eying an 11/45. My reading of the code
>was making me lean towards the original 11/20 configuration, but it
>sounds like some of these features might be present in the 11/40 or
>11/45?
I sure looks like they used an 11/20 with a KE11A board.
>speaking of modifying simh, we may have to map one of the similar
>serial devices in at the dc11 address to support ttys. simh doesn't
>support the DC-11, but when I asked on the simh mailing list someone
>mentioned that one of the existing devices is very similar with
>less support for modem control lines.
I can do that. Are there docs on the DC-11?
-brad
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Unix-jun72] more corrections
2008-05-01 16:09 Brad Parker
2008-05-01 17:03 ` Tim Newsham
@ 2008-05-01 17:10 ` Tim Newsham
2008-05-01 17:22 ` Brad Parker
[not found] ` <Pine.BSI.4.64.0805011927100.20114@malasada.lava.net>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Tim Newsham @ 2008-05-01 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
> I made some more minor corrections; turns out the commands in e00-01
> around "4;4" are wrong, those lines are needed or the IOT dispatch
> vector ends up in the wrong place.
Hmm.. those "/" comment characters are definitely not hand written
in. There are hand written comments that state what address things
should land at. I'm a bit confused how this could happen with
those comment characters in place, though, so removing them does
sound like its the right thing to do. By the way, you removed the
leading comment characters but did not add comment characters
after the entry but before the text comments that follow them.
ie: "4;4 init by copy" should be "4;4 / init by copy".
> -brad
Tim Newsham
http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Unix-jun72] more corrections
2008-05-01 17:10 ` Tim Newsham
@ 2008-05-01 17:22 ` Brad Parker
[not found] ` <Pine.BSI.4.64.0805010726040.20990@malasada.lava.net>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Brad Parker @ 2008-05-01 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
Tim Newsham wrote:
>> I made some more minor corrections; turns out the commands in e00-01
>> around "4;4" are wrong, those lines are needed or the IOT dispatch
>> vector ends up in the wrong place.
>
>Hmm.. those "/" comment characters are definitely not hand written
>in. There are hand written comments that state what address things
>should land at. I'm a bit confused how this could happen with
>those comment characters in place, though, so removing them does
>sound like its the right thing to do.
now you've convinced me it's not :-)
I wonder... hmmm. if the V1 a.out header where 12 bytes long, then
everything would just automagically work.
The v7 a.out header is 16 bytes long; but could the v1 a.out header
have been 12 bytes long?
-brad
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <Pine.BSI.4.64.0805011927100.20114@malasada.lava.net>]
* [Unix-jun72] more corrections
[not found] ` <Pine.BSI.4.64.0805011927100.20114@malasada.lava.net>
@ 2008-05-02 10:24 ` Brad Parker
0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Brad Parker @ 2008-05-02 10:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
Tim Newsham wrote:
>
>How can I get the modified simh?
Here's a diff against v36 and a tar of my working directory:
http://www.unlambda.com/download/pdp11/unix-jun72/KE.diff
http://www.unlambda.com/download/pdp11/unix-jun72/simhv36-1-ke.tar.gz
>Also what configuration are you using? I have this so far:
>
> set tc enabled
> att tc tape.dt
> set rk3 enabled
> att rk3 rk0.dsk
> set rf enabled
> att rf rf0.dsk
> set cpu 11/20
> set cpu 32K
I'm using this:
set cpu 11/20
set hk disabled
set rha disabled
set tm disabled
set rx disabled
set rl disabled
set tq disabled
set rk3 enabled
att rk3 rk3.dsk
set tc enabled
set rf enabled
set ke enabled
set cpu 32K
load loadfile
d pc 400
set cpu history=1000
attach rf rf0.dsk
I forgot to include my a.out->loadfile conversion program. I'll check it
in to svn.
>Have you gotten far enough that it writes out the full primitive
>root on rf0 so that you can reboot and get init going?
No - it writes a bunch of blocks to rf0 but no directories.
The 'zero i list' appears to work, and the code to init i-node 41-47 runs
but nothing gets written. Or if it does the wrong thing gets written. not
sure why.
To debug I sprinkle "halt"'s in the code and then do "show cpu history"
to see what happened.
As a sanity check I also do 'e 0-40' and 'e 400-440' to make sure
location 34 (iot vector) is filled in and the code at 400 is correct (it
loads the sp with 60000).
I might turn on some RF debug to see exactly what gets written when.
-brad
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-05-02 10:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-05-01 17:44 [Unix-jun72] more corrections James A. Markevitch
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-05-01 16:09 Brad Parker
2008-05-01 17:03 ` Tim Newsham
2008-05-01 17:10 ` Al Kossow
2008-05-01 17:19 ` Brad Parker
2008-05-01 17:10 ` Tim Newsham
2008-05-01 17:22 ` Brad Parker
[not found] ` <Pine.BSI.4.64.0805010726040.20990@malasada.lava.net>
2008-05-01 17:47 ` Brad Parker
2008-05-01 17:54 ` Tim Newsham
2008-05-01 18:15 ` Tim Newsham
2008-05-01 18:21 ` Tim Newsham
2008-05-01 18:34 ` Tim Newsham
2008-05-01 22:51 ` Warren Toomey
2008-05-01 23:31 ` Tim Newsham
2008-05-01 19:02 ` John Cowan
[not found] ` <Pine.BSI.4.64.0805011927100.20114@malasada.lava.net>
2008-05-02 10:24 ` Brad Parker
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).