From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ron@ronnatalie.com (Ronald Natalie) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:22:10 -0400 Subject: [TUHS] speaking of early C compilers In-Reply-To: References: <0F0B9BFC06289346B88512B91E55670D2F86@EXCHANGE> <2c9c14d6fd7d2e98ae0bc98d7f593ff9.squirrel@webmail.yaccman.com> Message-ID: <97AA639D-8BBF-4EE1-9E4D-5326E866B9BA@ronnatalie.com> > On Oct 27, 2014, at 10:06 PM, Clem Cole wrote: > > yes: http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3241&context=compsci > > I had a 60 running v7 years later. we also toyed with adding CSV/CRET but never did it because we got an 11/70 Problem with the 60 was it lacked Split I/D (as did the 40's). We kind of relied on that for the kernels towards the end of the PDP-11 days, We struggled with the lack of I/D on the 11/34 and 11/23 at BRL but finally gave up when TCP came along. We just didn't have enough segments to handle all the overlaying needed to do. I recycled all the non split-I/D machines into BRL GATEWAYS. Of course, there was the famous (or imfamous) MARK instruction. This thing was sort of a kludge, you actually pushed the instruction on the stack and then did the RTS into the stack to execute the MARK to pop the stack and jump back to the caller. I know of no compiler (either DEC-written or UNIX) that used the silly thing. It obviously wouldn't work in split I/D mode anyhow. Years later while sitting in some DEC product announcement presentation, they announced the new T-11 chip (the single chip PDP-11) and the speaker said that it supported the entire instruction set with the exception of MARK. Me and one other PDP-11 trivia guy are going "What? No mark instruction?" in the back of the room. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: