From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: downing.nick@gmail.com (Nick Downing) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:31:43 +1100 Subject: [TUHS] System III - TCP/IP In-Reply-To: <20151108143817.Horde.tlWgdF0OWmzmg-kXXO-AxUO@avocado.salatschuessel.net> References: <20151107200358.Horde.M1lYZZyTC4t0Qb8KrygKzhy@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <20151107192043.GA11895@mcvoy.com> <20151107231338.Horde.d8EIgIMMf9VYCExfovc2K_M@avocado.salatschuessel.net> <20151108051028.GA32246@cowbell.employees.org> <20151108143817.Horde.tlWgdF0OWmzmg-kXXO-AxUO@avocado.salatschuessel.net> Message-ID: By the way, there's no reason you can't use your existing Zilog toolchain. You can just modify the makefiles that come with 2.11BSD to run the Zilog tools. Or another option might be to write a compiler driver that acts like "cc" and invokes the Zilog tools as subprocesses, you have the source for 2.11BSD "cc" so this shouldn't be too hard to do. Whatever naming convention the Zilog compiler uses, you could rename the object files to ".o" and the 2.11BSD build system would work largely unchanged. The most tricky part will be creating the a.out executables, which are in the simplest case a header of maybe 18 bytes (depends slightly on the magic number of the executable since there were a few different compatible versions) followed by the code and data segments followed by relocation records. To do this, I am pretty sure I created my own linker, or modified the unix linker (cannot remember exactly) in order to read the object files from the IAR Z180 assembler (and I think these were in S-record format that you mentioned) and create the a.out executables, I also had an extended a.out format for the large multi-segment executables (including the kernel), in which I arranged the code into 4 kbyte segments using a first-fit algorithm. Again I'm happy to give you whatever I have on this. Nick On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:38 AM, Oliver Lehmann wrote: > > Nick Downing wrote: > >> I think you might get better mileage by just trying to port 2.11BSD over >> to >> your Z8001 device, since it is a self contained system, no interface >> hacking will be needed, just porting. > > > By the way - why do you think 2.11 BSD would be better to port instead of > the > original 4.3 BSD? The system has no 64KB addressing limitation. It can > adress > up to 128 64KB segments (=8MB). I mean, on a first look, it looks like > 2.11BSD > contains a lot more Assembler Code I would need to move to Z8001 ASM > mnemonics > as 4.3 does?! > _______________________________________________ > TUHS mailing list > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs