From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 7970fb86 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 19:40:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 94B0A9B775; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:40:31 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 998719B72B; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:39:53 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 159D29B727; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:39:51 +1000 (AEST) Received: from rooster.satexas.com (rooster.satexas.com [207.235.90.2]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C07C19B720 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2019 05:39:49 +1000 (AEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rooster.satexas.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 164411C2A87 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 14:39:48 -0500 (CDT) Received: from rooster.satexas.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rooster.satexas.com [127.0.0.1]) (maiad, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03312-04 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 14:39:47 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [192.168.147.6] (rrcs-71-42-153-195.sw.biz.rr.com [71.42.153.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: csauer@nwhillsumc.org) by rooster.satexas.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CC4A1C2A82 for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2019 14:39:47 -0500 (CDT) To: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org References: <8235a090-c48a-4587-8974-23305233bc33@PU1APC01FT026.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com> <3CFC8159-08DD-4647-8CEF-FE8D196AB3C9@ccc.com> <610F6FCB-F24D-4788-953A-83E0E6456622@ccc.com> From: Charles H Sauer Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 14:39:48 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: World Net ProMail v2.0.0 Subject: Re: [TUHS] PCC for the i386 X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" Dell SVR4 included both pcc & gcc. gcc was used to build the system. I think Richard Wirt's group at Intel contributed to optimization for 486, IIRC, probably for gcc, possibly for pcc. I assume AIX/386 used pcc, but Clem likely knows for sure. Charlie On 7/11/2019 12:05 PM, Clem Cole wrote: > Yup, that was Steve Ward's folks in the MIT/RTS group - it was the NU > computer work.  John Siber did most of the compiler work (funny, Steve > Johnson and I were talking about some of that work last night at the > UNIX50 party last night).  tjt wrote the 68K assembler ward's folks > used.  I don't remember where the Z8000 assembler came, but I'm petty > sure that the Intel assembler and some of the tools other John had > brought back from his summers in MH. > > I think (but don't know for sure) the Intel 8086 assembler was done at > AT&T first.  IIRC it may have come out of Dale's group in Columbus.   I > do know Dale's group had done a Z80 C Compiler using the Ritchie > Compiler at some point in 1978 timeframe (and at one time I had, but can > not seem to find it, in my archives). > > When Intel released the 386, I believe the AT&T 8086 assembler was > updated for the new 32 instructions; although who did that/where was > done, I'm not sure. > > Steve is probably the best source for most of this as he managed the > team in Summit doing the different AT&T front and back ends when they > tried to centralize the compiler work for UNIX. > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:48 PM Warner Losh > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 10:31 AM Clem cole > wrote: > > By the time of 4.2 the switch from the  Ritchie and Johnson > compilers at UCB had begun.  Remember the primary output of Rms > at that point was emacs and gcc. > > CSRG wanted the different backends for C.   ThAts it.  Besides > the vax, Rms had done 68000 and 386 back ends then. > > With the original system V, all of AT&T, Intel and IBM paid > Interactive Systems Corp (aka ISC) to port the System V/Vax code > to a 386 ps/2 and an Intel reference system that used an ISA > bus.  This would be eventually released in source at the 386 > port from AT&T.   As part of the contract summit supplied the > compiler > > I know the AT&T assembler with it’s backwards syntax from Intel > was done before rms did his.  He was compatible with the summit > assembler.  I don’t remember who’s 386 backend came out first. > I think is was the summit compiler but you needed a system v > license which UCB did not have. > > > There's also a fair amount of work at MIT to do Intel code > generation for 8086 (small mode) that was extended by Queens College > London (I think, I gotta grab the tapes again) to do large mode. > I've run into this looking for a compiler for the Venix source > restoration project I've been tilting at. I found those based on a > cryptic comment I found somewhere online about the tech behind Venix > that wasn't from AT&T. I don't know if ISC started with them as a > base or not, nor really how the MIT compilers came about, but they > claim to be PCC based somehow. Don't know if this helps you on your > quest... BTW, I found these when I found the latest pcc-restoration > sources didn't have a working i86 backend anymore (there was once > one for Minux, but when I built it I couldn't get it to generate > sensible code at all). > > Warner > > Clem > > Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be almost > but not quite. > > On Jul 11, 2019, at 8:50 AM, Jason Stevens > > wrote: > >> That would make sense.   I was able to find some info on PCC2 here >> >> http://doc.cat-v.org/unix/unix-before-berkeley/ >> >> I'm guessing along with the adoption of emacs the csrg must >> have been further gnu synergy...  Or maybe PCC2 just wasn't >> available outside of the labs? >> >> Or maybe by '88 gcc was already usurping many of the c >> compilers of the era. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 11:37 PM +0800, "Clem cole" >> > wrote: >> >> I believe the pcc/386 came out of Steve Johnson team at >> Summit with the PCC2 work. >> >> Sent from my PDP-7 Running UNIX V0 expect things to be >> almost but not quite. >> >> On Jul 11, 2019, at 7:53 AM, Jason Stevens >> > > wrote: >> >>> Does anyone know where the 386 port from PCC came from? >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> While trying to build a Tahoe userland for the i386, it >>> seems that everything was built with GCC… >>> >>> Was there a PCC for the i386 around ’88-90?  It seems >>> after the rapid demise of the Tahoe/Harris >>> >>> HCX-9 that the non Vax/HCX-9 platforms had moved to GCC?____ >>> >>> __ __ >>> >>> Also anyone know any good test software for LIBC?  I’ve >>> been tracing through some____ >>> >>> strange issues rebuilding LIBC from Tahoe, where I had to >>> include some bits from____ >>> >>> Reno to get diropen to actually work.  I would imagine >>> there ought to have been some____ >>> >>> platform exercise code to make sure things were actually >>> working instead of say____ >>> >>> building as much as you can, and playing rogue for a few >>> hours to make sure____ >>> >>> its stable enough. >>> -- voice: +1.512.784.7526 e-mail: sauer@technologists.com fax: +1.512.346.5240 Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/ Facebook/Google/Skype/Twitter: CharlesHSauer