[TUHS] Bryan Cantrill on bfs & ta

[TUHS] Bryan Cantrill on bfs & ta

[Sevan / Venture37]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk8aZv0JJuk&feature=player_detailpage#t=3493s

"SunOS has never run on a 16bit machine"

My response was M68000 & 386 but his counter response was they both 
supported 32bit addressing.

Sevan

[TUHS] Bryan Cantrill on bfs & ta

[Greg 'groggy' Lehey]

On Thursday, 18 October 2012 at 23:51:20 +0100, Sevan / Venture37 wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk8aZv0JJuk&feature=player_detailpage#t=3493s
>
> "SunOS has never run on a 16bit machine"
>
> My response was M68000 & 386 but his counter response was they both
> supported 32bit addressing.

They're also 32 bit internally.  I'd never think of either as a 16 bit
machine.

Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog at FreeBSD.org for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed.  If your Microsoft MUA reports
problems, please read http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20121019/92d3a542/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] Bryan Cantrill on bfs & ta

[Clem Cole]

Greg

the 68000 and 68010 were 16 bit internals. ie a 16 bit barrel shifter and it took 2 ticks to perform 32 bit ops.    a natural int was indeed 16 bits in the base registers although they also could be used as 32 bit registers (2 ticks ) so some 68k compilers defined int as 16 others as 32 (more in a minute). it technically was LP32 not ILP32

the external logic (ie pins) supported 24 bits of address.   moto fortunately passed all 32 bits along on the first chip and onto storage (thank you Les & Nick) so when later versions had a full  32 bit shifter everything just worked.  this meant that both chips supported 32bit addressing.  So while the machine operated 16 bits at a time the programmer had a full 32 bit view (and eventually a 32 bit virtual address space) even though the chip only supported 24 bits of address and operated 16 bits of data at a time. 


They're so even thought they were 16 bit internally.  I'd never think of either chop as a 16 bit machine

as for 16/32 bit argument - the hacked C compiler that Glasser and I cobbled together in 1979 at Tektronix used 16 bit.   IIRC the rts guys (jack test et al) used 32 bits at day one even though the natural int was 16 bits. 



there were advantages to both solutions and Jeff Mogul and i used argue about.  looking back on the 68000 in hind sight MIT got it right and while it worked mildly faster a 16 bit int was a bad idea

Clem

PS but I agree.  SunOS never ran on a pure 16 not machine.  on fact they started with compiler derived from Test et al.  



PPS. we relived this whole argument with 64 bits and it was interesting that we generally came to think LP64 made more sense for chips like Alpha

On Oct 18, 2012, at 6:40 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog at lemis.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, 18 October 2012 at 23:51:20 +0100, Sevan / Venture37 wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk8aZv0JJuk&feature=player_detailpage#t=3493s
>> 
>> "SunOS has never run on a 16bit machine"
>> 
>> My response was M68000 & 386 but his counter response was they both
>> supported 32bit addressing.
> 
> They're also 32 bit internally.  I'd never think of either as a 16 bit
> machine.
> 
> Greg
> --
> Sent from my desktop computer.
> Finger grog at FreeBSD.org for PGP public key.
> See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
> This message is digitally signed.  If your Microsoft MUA reports
> problems, please read http://tinyurl.com/broken-mua
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

[TUHS] Bryan Cantrill on bfs & ta

[John Cowan]

Clem Cole scripsit:

> the 68000 and 68010 were 16 bit internals. ie a 16 bit barrel shifter
> and it took 2 ticks to perform 32 bit ops.    a natural int was indeed
> 16 bits in the base registers although they also could be used as
> 32 bit registers (2 ticks ) so some 68k compilers defined int as 16
> others as 32 (more in a minute). it technically was LP32 not ILP32

Sounds like the 8088, which used an 8-bit bus but 16-bit registers
and operations.

-- 
John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Sir, I quite agree with you, but what are we two against so many?
    --George Bernard Shaw,
         to a man booing at the opening of _Arms and the Man_

[TUHS] Bryan Cantrill on bfs & ta

[Peter Jeremy]

On 2012-Oct-19 15:44:27 -0500, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
>the 68000 and 68010 were 16 bit internals.

It depends whether you are talking implementation or architecture.
The M68000 architecture was basically 32 bits (Motorola initially
skimped on the multiply & divide instructions and referred to it as a
"16-/32-bit architecture"), though the initial implementation used a
16-bit ALU.

To go back further, the IBM System/360 was a 32-bit architecture but
the low-end implementation (360/20) only had 8-bit wide memory and an
8-bit wide ALU and there was also a 16-bit wide implementation.

>the external logic (ie pins) supported 24 bits of address.  moto
>fortunately passed all 32 bits along on the first chip and onto
>storage (thank you Les & Nick) so when later versions had a full 32
>bit shifter everything just worked.

They clearly defined that the programmer's view was a 32-bit address
but some implementations didn't map all the address bits onto pins.
Note that this approach of only physically implementing a subset of
the address bus has continued into the 64-bit chips - most chips only
have 36-40 physical address bits and 40-48 logical address bits.
(Though one big difference is that the unimplemented address bits are
validated instead of ignored).

>PPS. we relived this whole argument with 64 bits and it was
>interesting that we generally came to think LP64 made more sense for
>chips like Alpha

I think a lot of this was also driven by the large amount of software
that was ILP32.  Converting int from 32- to 64-bits would add a lot
of pain for very little benefit.  Just making code work with LP64 was
painful enough.

On 2012-Oct-19 16:54:28 -0400, John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>Sounds like the 8088, which used an 8-bit bus but 16-bit registers
>and operations.

The 8088 and 68008 were basically 8086/68000 chips with reworked bus
interface logic so that the external data bus was only 8-bit (and the
68008 also cut the address bus from 24- to 20-bits).  Other than being
slower, they appeared the same as their 16-bit cousins.  They were
aimed at applications where price was more important than performance:
Using the 8088 meant that IBM only needed 8 64Kx1 DRAM chips and the
68008 used a much smaller and cheaper 40-pin DIP instead of the 64-pin
DIP needed for the 68000.

-- 
Peter Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20121020/14da205c/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] Bryan Cantrill on bfs & ta

[Larry McVoy]

Did anyone watch his talk?  I just tried and couldn't make out what he was
talking about.

Bryan's a smart guy but a little subjective.  I spent a day wandering
around San Franciso with him (we used to live within a few blocks of
each other) talking tech stuff, hardware, os, etc.  He was completely
rational, smart, insightful, until we got to either sparc or solaris.
Then he was subjective as hell, he just couldn't back away from them
enough to make an objective comparison to other solutions. 

Funny thing was that so long as sparc/solaris weren't the subject matter
he was very objective, could see the pros/cons of anything.

I guess he drank the Sun koolaid.


On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:51:20PM +0100, Sevan / Venture37 wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk8aZv0JJuk&feature=player_detailpage#t=3493s
> 
> "SunOS has never run on a 16bit machine"
> 
> My response was M68000 & 386 but his counter response was they both
> supported 32bit addressing.
> 
> Sevan
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com

[TUHS] Bryan Cantrill on bfs & ta

[A. P. Garcia]

I watched one he gave at a usenix conference where he sort of recapped some
of the history of solaris and how oracle ruined everything and drove away
all the talent. Whether he had a valid point or not, it wasn't very
becoming. I don't know..it just never looks good when you air that stuff
out in public.

That said, it's hard to exaggerate the brilliance of dtrace. Like a
uw-madison professor said about some of the work that inspired it, it's
like watching in fine detail the inner parts of an engine move while going
down the highway at 60 mph.
On Oct 21, 2012 7:56 PM, "Larry McVoy" <lm at bitmover.com> wrote:

> Did anyone watch his talk?  I just tried and couldn't make out what he was
> talking about.
>
> Bryan's a smart guy but a little subjective.  I spent a day wandering
> around San Franciso with him (we used to live within a few blocks of
> each other) talking tech stuff, hardware, os, etc.  He was completely
> rational, smart, insightful, until we got to either sparc or solaris.
> Then he was subjective as hell, he just couldn't back away from them
> enough to make an objective comparison to other solutions.
>
> Funny thing was that so long as sparc/solaris weren't the subject matter
> he was very objective, could see the pros/cons of anything.
>
> I guess he drank the Sun koolaid.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:51:20PM +0100, Sevan / Venture37 wrote:
> >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk8aZv0JJuk&feature=player_detailpage#t=3493s
> >
> > "SunOS has never run on a 16bit machine"
> >
> > My response was M68000 & 386 but his counter response was they both
> > supported 32bit addressing.
> >
> > Sevan
> > _______________________________________________
> > TUHS mailing list
> > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com
> http://www.bitkeeper.com
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20121022/034a0d99/attachment.html>

[TUHS] Bryan Cantrill on bfs & ta

[Larry McVoy]

Which professor and which work?   I'm guessing Bart.

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:01:44AM -0500, A. P. Garcia wrote:
> I watched one he gave at a usenix conference where he sort of recapped some
> of the history of solaris and how oracle ruined everything and drove away
> all the talent. Whether he had a valid point or not, it wasn't very
> becoming. I don't know..it just never looks good when you air that stuff
> out in public.
> 
> That said, it's hard to exaggerate the brilliance of dtrace. Like a
> uw-madison professor said about some of the work that inspired it, it's
> like watching in fine detail the inner parts of an engine move while going
> down the highway at 60 mph.
> On Oct 21, 2012 7:56 PM, "Larry McVoy" <lm at bitmover.com> wrote:
> 
> > Did anyone watch his talk?  I just tried and couldn't make out what he was
> > talking about.
> >
> > Bryan's a smart guy but a little subjective.  I spent a day wandering
> > around San Franciso with him (we used to live within a few blocks of
> > each other) talking tech stuff, hardware, os, etc.  He was completely
> > rational, smart, insightful, until we got to either sparc or solaris.
> > Then he was subjective as hell, he just couldn't back away from them
> > enough to make an objective comparison to other solutions.
> >
> > Funny thing was that so long as sparc/solaris weren't the subject matter
> > he was very objective, could see the pros/cons of anything.
> >
> > I guess he drank the Sun koolaid.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:51:20PM +0100, Sevan / Venture37 wrote:
> > >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk8aZv0JJuk&feature=player_detailpage#t=3493s
> > >
> > > "SunOS has never run on a 16bit machine"
> > >
> > > My response was M68000 & 386 but his counter response was they both
> > > supported 32bit addressing.
> > >
> > > Sevan
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > TUHS mailing list
> > > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> > > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> >
> > --
> > ---
> > Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com
> > http://www.bitkeeper.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > TUHS mailing list
> > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> >

-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com

[TUHS] Bryan Cantrill on bfs & ta

[A. P. Garcia]

Yes, Bart Miller regarding "Fine-grained dynamic instrumentation of
commodity operating sytem kernels":
ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/paradyn/papers/Tamches99FineGrained.pdf


On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Larry McVoy <lm at bitmover.com> wrote:

> Which professor and which work?   I'm guessing Bart.
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:01:44AM -0500, A. P. Garcia wrote:
> > I watched one he gave at a usenix conference where he sort of recapped
> some
> > of the history of solaris and how oracle ruined everything and drove away
> > all the talent. Whether he had a valid point or not, it wasn't very
> > becoming. I don't know..it just never looks good when you air that stuff
> > out in public.
> >
> > That said, it's hard to exaggerate the brilliance of dtrace. Like a
> > uw-madison professor said about some of the work that inspired it, it's
> > like watching in fine detail the inner parts of an engine move while
> going
> > down the highway at 60 mph.
> > On Oct 21, 2012 7:56 PM, "Larry McVoy" <lm at bitmover.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Did anyone watch his talk?  I just tried and couldn't make out what he
> was
> > > talking about.
> > >
> > > Bryan's a smart guy but a little subjective.  I spent a day wandering
> > > around San Franciso with him (we used to live within a few blocks of
> > > each other) talking tech stuff, hardware, os, etc.  He was completely
> > > rational, smart, insightful, until we got to either sparc or solaris.
> > > Then he was subjective as hell, he just couldn't back away from them
> > > enough to make an objective comparison to other solutions.
> > >
> > > Funny thing was that so long as sparc/solaris weren't the subject
> matter
> > > he was very objective, could see the pros/cons of anything.
> > >
> > > I guess he drank the Sun koolaid.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:51:20PM +0100, Sevan / Venture37 wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk8aZv0JJuk&feature=player_detailpage#t=3493s
> > > >
> > > > "SunOS has never run on a 16bit machine"
> > > >
> > > > My response was M68000 & 386 but his counter response was they both
> > > > supported 32bit addressing.
> > > >
> > > > Sevan
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > TUHS mailing list
> > > > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> > > > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> > >
> > > --
> > > ---
> > > Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com
> > > http://www.bitkeeper.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > TUHS mailing list
> > > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> > > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> > >
>
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com
> http://www.bitkeeper.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20121022/6c59cc66/attachment.html>

[TUHS] Bryan Cantrill on bfs & ta

[Larry McVoy]

Go Bart.  I took some classes from him in grad school (I think, did
undergrad there as well), liked his style.  Smart guy.

Do the dtrace guys credit Bart at all?

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 09:05:46AM -0500, A. P. Garcia wrote:
> Yes, Bart Miller regarding "Fine-grained dynamic instrumentation of
> commodity operating sytem kernels":
> ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/paradyn/papers/Tamches99FineGrained.pdf
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Larry McVoy <lm at bitmover.com> wrote:
> 
> > Which professor and which work?   I'm guessing Bart.
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:01:44AM -0500, A. P. Garcia wrote:
> > > I watched one he gave at a usenix conference where he sort of recapped
> > some
> > > of the history of solaris and how oracle ruined everything and drove away
> > > all the talent. Whether he had a valid point or not, it wasn't very
> > > becoming. I don't know..it just never looks good when you air that stuff
> > > out in public.
> > >
> > > That said, it's hard to exaggerate the brilliance of dtrace. Like a
> > > uw-madison professor said about some of the work that inspired it, it's
> > > like watching in fine detail the inner parts of an engine move while
> > going
> > > down the highway at 60 mph.
> > > On Oct 21, 2012 7:56 PM, "Larry McVoy" <lm at bitmover.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Did anyone watch his talk?  I just tried and couldn't make out what he
> > was
> > > > talking about.
> > > >
> > > > Bryan's a smart guy but a little subjective.  I spent a day wandering
> > > > around San Franciso with him (we used to live within a few blocks of
> > > > each other) talking tech stuff, hardware, os, etc.  He was completely
> > > > rational, smart, insightful, until we got to either sparc or solaris.
> > > > Then he was subjective as hell, he just couldn't back away from them
> > > > enough to make an objective comparison to other solutions.
> > > >
> > > > Funny thing was that so long as sparc/solaris weren't the subject
> > matter
> > > > he was very objective, could see the pros/cons of anything.
> > > >
> > > > I guess he drank the Sun koolaid.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:51:20PM +0100, Sevan / Venture37 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk8aZv0JJuk&feature=player_detailpage#t=3493s
> > > > >
> > > > > "SunOS has never run on a 16bit machine"
> > > > >
> > > > > My response was M68000 & 386 but his counter response was they both
> > > > > supported 32bit addressing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sevan
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > TUHS mailing list
> > > > > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> > > > > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ---
> > > > Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com
> > > > http://www.bitkeeper.com
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > TUHS mailing list
> > > > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> > > > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > ---
> > Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com
> > http://www.bitkeeper.com
> >

-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com

[TUHS] Bryan Cantrill on bfs & ta

[A. P. Garcia]

yes, it's in the references here:
http://static.usenix.org/event/usenix04/tech/general/full_papers/cantrill/cantrill_html/

i'm pretty sure i saw it in the solaris documentation that cantrill wrote
as well..


On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Larry McVoy <lm at bitmover.com> wrote:

> Go Bart.  I took some classes from him in grad school (I think, did
> undergrad there as well), liked his style.  Smart guy.
>
> Do the dtrace guys credit Bart at all?
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 09:05:46AM -0500, A. P. Garcia wrote:
> > Yes, Bart Miller regarding "Fine-grained dynamic instrumentation of
> > commodity operating sytem kernels":
> > ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/paradyn/papers/Tamches99FineGrained.pdf
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Larry McVoy <lm at bitmover.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Which professor and which work?   I'm guessing Bart.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:01:44AM -0500, A. P. Garcia wrote:
> > > > I watched one he gave at a usenix conference where he sort of
> recapped
> > > some
> > > > of the history of solaris and how oracle ruined everything and drove
> away
> > > > all the talent. Whether he had a valid point or not, it wasn't very
> > > > becoming. I don't know..it just never looks good when you air that
> stuff
> > > > out in public.
> > > >
> > > > That said, it's hard to exaggerate the brilliance of dtrace. Like a
> > > > uw-madison professor said about some of the work that inspired it,
> it's
> > > > like watching in fine detail the inner parts of an engine move while
> > > going
> > > > down the highway at 60 mph.
> > > > On Oct 21, 2012 7:56 PM, "Larry McVoy" <lm at bitmover.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Did anyone watch his talk?  I just tried and couldn't make out
> what he
> > > was
> > > > > talking about.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bryan's a smart guy but a little subjective.  I spent a day
> wandering
> > > > > around San Franciso with him (we used to live within a few blocks
> of
> > > > > each other) talking tech stuff, hardware, os, etc.  He was
> completely
> > > > > rational, smart, insightful, until we got to either sparc or
> solaris.
> > > > > Then he was subjective as hell, he just couldn't back away from
> them
> > > > > enough to make an objective comparison to other solutions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Funny thing was that so long as sparc/solaris weren't the subject
> > > matter
> > > > > he was very objective, could see the pros/cons of anything.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess he drank the Sun koolaid.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:51:20PM +0100, Sevan / Venture37 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk8aZv0JJuk&feature=player_detailpage#t=3493s
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "SunOS has never run on a 16bit machine"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My response was M68000 & 386 but his counter response was they
> both
> > > > > > supported 32bit addressing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sevan
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > TUHS mailing list
> > > > > > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> > > > > > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com
> > > > > http://www.bitkeeper.com
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > TUHS mailing list
> > > > > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> > > > > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> > > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ---
> > > Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com
> > > http://www.bitkeeper.com
> > >
>
> --
> ---
> Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com
> http://www.bitkeeper.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20121022/c386c475/attachment.html>