From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: (qmail 26755 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2020 00:54:57 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with UTF8ESMTPZ; 29 Apr 2020 00:54:57 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 7F0799C967; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:54:55 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A27E9C95A; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:54:29 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=mxes.net header.i=@mxes.net header.b="f761QvtU"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 21A0C9C95A; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:54:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: from smtp-out-4.mxes.net (smtp-out-4.mxes.net [198.205.123.69]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D68D9C8D8 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 10:54:26 +1000 (AEST) Received: from squirrelmail.mxes.net (squirrelmail.mxes.net [198.205.123.113]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E1877596A; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 20:54:24 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mxes.net; s=mta; t=1588121664; bh=syHdWeFexV5/OKYaYcc3RLeSw6rIrRtWmjXJ+1RpoRA=; h=Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Subject:From:To: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=f761QvtUw32hKirL2peWd+Iq/+hLOBnDZ23NnofAn3kpFxLYeS2qCi1bdr2PWA4at q61/KuCwJ2mibAgd6FUrnvdAB77tj28M/v7W8Buc2SRGa/gS/Ij6mbEor71qTFv9Et WZK8TxvguUNOMY0DaLL4YvLVEBX0ioIU/NrxJDaQ= Received: from squirrelmail.tuffmail.net (squirrelmail.mxes.net [198.205.123.113]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by squirrelmail.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C094E75AEC; Tue, 28 Apr 2020 20:54:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <3642A182-45AA-43F8-A07B-8FAB69AD84A9@ronnatalie.com> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 20:54:24 -0400 From: ron@ronnatalie.com To: "Jacob Ritorto" User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.23 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Sent-To: Subject: Re: [TUHS] as(1) on Ultrix-11 vs 2.11BSD 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: , Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" Yes, the calling sequence changes were in the back of my mind, but fortunately the TUHS source archives allowed me to easily look at the kernel source to see how the arguments were passed. Somewhere between 2.8 and 2.11 they changed it. Again, 2.11 was one fo the first attempts to formalize a true "multi platform" kernel rather than just copying over the kernel and reworking it for a new machine from a seperate source "tree." Yes, your code takes the return of the write system call and uses it as the exit code. Not that it makes too much difference. My 2.11 version of your code passes a zero explicitly. Amusingly, speaking of college courses. I had early on joined the UNIX systems programming team at JHU and had also done some custom work for various PDP-11 sites on campus (DOS/BATCH, RT-11, etc...). PDP-11 assembler was something I knew well. The head of the EE department tol= d me he'd be very disappointed if I actually signed up for his PDP-11 assembler programming course my senior year. Oddly, this caused some consternation with the faculty committee approving my graduation as I hadn't taken it and it was required. Our department UNIX machine as a PDP-11/45 running a high modified V6 kernel. I also got one of the early 11/23's and we brought up the same software on that. A year after I graduated, I was attending a DEC announcement on the T-11 (I think the first single chip PDP-11). The speaker says it had all the instructions with the exception of MARK. Me and one other guy are going, "What? No MARK instruction?" MARK was the most useless instruction concocted and it wouldn't even work on an executable that was set up split I/D.