From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST,HTML_MESSAGE, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_DKIMWL_WL_MED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id e5909e28 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 19:40:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4E7CF9EE2B; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 05:40:53 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21639ED37; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 05:40:36 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=majumdar-org-uk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@majumdar-org-uk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b=BvClJIqr; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 0C33E9ED37; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 05:40:34 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-vk0-f45.google.com (mail-vk0-f45.google.com [209.85.213.45]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC7209ED1C for ; Fri, 20 Jul 2018 05:40:32 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-vk0-f45.google.com with SMTP id y70-v6so4980442vkc.0 for ; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 12:40:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=majumdar-org-uk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BoiGhNOoTMzl2BFWrsfGbpWuE6ZZEWiM1B41NHd1knk=; b=BvClJIqrqFON7HJvd6g1ms50OQvkBuAS9U/MQMZU6iWsd0NH+dHMMfdyQg5JQTPPtp oZgENCb4IukVmFcGrtdBoWE4MvR0PvzeB4JwneBB5nLDDSHtkDFXok83sCXuT+LzsDM5 W7DzL210d2EBMBx18R4qOejScIMSKkiaEHKH8ypP4e8vH9yhJHmcAGgBHunbpj7r2J9s yncszpRiIvjY9qFN0D4EhtqXJB8/xvFZ2X5KEU5zNlBfMfy+KDIp+CA6cCI3BT3wo3PA JZ3P8jjVLP/1OjX8emFMLFtb2P2vNqaTSdDViJP3m3CLPytLNX1Yclwvsno0Sydl2TPk sOnw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BoiGhNOoTMzl2BFWrsfGbpWuE6ZZEWiM1B41NHd1knk=; b=NfimvC0xmR2y0ccxcGlVAIGI8kwmJN2v4i2D//CubMf2jJNyQdNkMIxmSVPXw8S4qp fwfDgLzukirYFhpjTt0UW+0MEBGuDcKWkaJtWAluJE6wsPYUZpcqcXb90Ay8jynaEKrr bSYhIG0CgRuVleVLDaCRGEYtvsrpMz8E0robU3sQ2O7vKBeclfJsEonnvwTfT2ffkgKl eI7elMmLhNjUJZ+AWiUqvg/MOGXhsgj7bpoFBsHfAvuUSA5lw+AujsXzbYAHuwD1VsLK hu10QGqJtZdoIgDLkq63FJEf9KpmCKZhzB8Zvq5CRVSgyW+0Bv/dyAm6bNGaOdgH7mKD bTJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHvfqT9/2w5AJP/00ms5sLTbbcMe70hAKGE6X841lD8NTuBPi46 2mQ15Yz4ayEiMX7AafOL6FRqeYvQ3GP/wi1RPKMbfFVDLpk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpeEDMIA1xNEkjkdAJ+D1bf2b59tXcVBmuqxetA4NoloFYcMsMb9x0Xk0tP9X047chv24pq1saK0qANqpg/O3GQ= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:b3d5:: with SMTP id c204-v6mr6668292vkf.37.1532029231703; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 12:40:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:ab0:a5:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 12:40:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Dibyendu Majumdar Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 20:40:31 +0100 Message-ID: To: Clem Cole Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000243f2305715f5ab9" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Looking for final C compiler by Dennis Ritchie X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000243f2305715f5ab9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 19 July 2018 at 15:50, Clem Cole wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Dibyendu Majumdar > wrote: > >> I am interested in finding out if the last C compiler code (not the >> earliest versions which I know >> are available) written by Dennis Ritchie is available somewhere. I >> assume that the C compiler in V7 code was written by him? >> >> =E2=80=8BI'm not sure if this is the last. This is a pointer to the V7= Ritchie > Compiler: https://minnie.tuhs.org//cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=3DV7/usr/src/cm= d/c > - The sources and the makefile build the three passes /lib/c[012] > This should be a good starting point/base line. > > Many thanks - I will compare this with https://github.com/eunuchs/unix-archive/tree/master/PDP-11/Trees/V7/usr/src= /cmd/c which is what I have been looking at. I guess that by this time the work had transitioned to pcc so probably there isn't a later version available? > Be careful because the Johnson Compiler (pcc) was also included with V7 > and is a different technology. > Yes understood. > > This is important because their are modifications to both the Ritchie and > Johnson compilers 'in-the-wild' for other back-ends and new optimizations= . > I for instance, re-targeted the Ritchie compiler to what would become t= he > 68000 (it was not yet numbered, it was an experimental chip when we had > access to it in the late 1970s in Tek Labs - mine was a 16 bit 'int' as I > was coming primarily from the PDP-11 at the time and the chip was a 16 bi= t > chip internally - so the code was tight and clean and I basically > substituted PDP-11 instruction sequences for 68000 sequences). IIRC, Ja= ck > Test's 68000 compiler from MIT which was about 18 mons later was based on > the Johnson compiler but he used a 32 bit 'int' which proved easier for > porting programs from the Vax, as the chip supported 32 bit words even > though it took 2 ticks to do anything [so Jack's compiler generated slowe= r > code for many simple ops]. > > I recommend, that google for the old USENIX tapes and see what you turn u= p > and compare. > > =E1=90=A7 > Thank you for the info - I will certainly look at the USENIX tapes. I will try to port the C compiler to amd64 - while preserving as much of the original code as I can. But not sure if this is even feasible. Thanks and Regards Dibyendu --000000000000243f2305715f5ab9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 19 July 2018 at 15:50, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Dibyendu Majumdar = <mobile@maju= mdar.org.uk> wrote:
I am interested in finding out if the last C compiler code (not the
earliest versions which I know
are available) written by Dennis Ritchie is available somewhere. I
assume that the C compiler in V7 code was written by him?

=E2=80=8BI'm not sure i= f this is the last.=C2=A0 =C2=A0This is a pointer to the V7 Ritchie Compile= r:=C2=A0 https://minnie.tuhs.org//cgi-bin/utree.p= l?file=3DV7/usr/src/cmd/c=C2=A0 - The sources and the makefile bui= ld the three passes /lib/c[012]=C2=A0=C2=A0
This should be a good= starting point/base line.


Many thanks - I will compare this with https://github.com/eunuchs/unix-archive/tree/master/PDP-11/Tree= s/V7/usr/src/cmd/c=C2=A0 which is what I have been looking at.

I guess that by this time the work had transitioned to pcc= so probably there isn't a later version available?
=C2= =A0
Be careful because th= e Johnson Compiler (pcc) was also included with V7 and is a different techn= ology.

Yes un= derstood.
=C2=A0
=C2=A0
This is important because their are modificati= ons to both the Ritchie and Johnson compilers 'in-the-wild' for oth= er back-ends and new optimizations.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 I for instance, re-targete= d the Ritchie compiler to what would become the 68000 (it was not yet numbe= red, it was an experimental chip when we had access to it in the late 1970s= in Tek Labs - mine was a 16 bit 'int' as I was coming primarily fr= om the PDP-11 at the time and the chip was a 16 bit chip internally - so th= e code was tight and clean and I basically substituted PDP-11 instruction s= equences for 68000 sequences).=C2=A0 =C2=A0IIRC, Jack Test's 68000 comp= iler from MIT which was about 18 mons later was based on the Johnson compil= er but he used a 32 bit 'int' which proved easier for porting progr= ams from the Vax, as the chip supported 32 bit words even though it took 2 = ticks to do anything [so Jack's compiler generated slower code for many= simple ops].

I recommend, that google for the old= USENIX tapes and see what you turn up and compare.

=3D""=E1=90=A7

Thank you for the info - I will certainly look at the USENIX = tapes.

I will try to port the C compiler to amd64 - while preserving as much of t= he original code as I can. But not sure if this is even feasible.

Thanks and= Regards
Dibyendu
--000000000000243f2305715f5ab9--