Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #153085 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-19 11:57 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-10-24 07:03 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 176 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-19 11:57 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-10-20 05:05 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-20 13:57 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Daiyu Hurst <daiyu.hurst@gmail.com> - 2015-10-24 21:26 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-25 10:17 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-25 18:13 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-25 21:35 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:28 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-26 17:46 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-26 17:49 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:29 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-21 11:45 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2015-10-21 12:34 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-21 14:36 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-22 09:38 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-22 11:07 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-22 11:35 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-22 12:26 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-23 21:52 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-23 23:16 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-24 00:21 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-24 13:23 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-24 15:25 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-24 22:37 +0200
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-25 15:53 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-25 16:08 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-26 12:08 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-26 16:24 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-24 16:26 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-25 16:33 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-26 12:03 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 06:49 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:02 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:18 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:28 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 07:39 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-26 16:25 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:36 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-26 17:41 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:26 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-27 22:47 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-27 12:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-27 09:03 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:38 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-27 08:43 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:43 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language hankvc@blackhole.lostwells.org (Hank) - 2015-10-28 19:05 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-28 16:08 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 05:43 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-27 15:37 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-27 18:48 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-28 12:58 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 08:15 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:37 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 04:58 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 12:19 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-28 12:58 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 11:08 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-28 18:46 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-28 17:58 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> - 2015-10-28 22:04 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-28 17:39 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-29 00:13 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 22:52 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-29 15:54 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 16:47 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-04 12:04 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 05:54 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 07:21 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-29 16:48 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 14:47 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 15:09 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 17:19 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-29 18:18 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-10-29 18:02 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:37 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 11:28 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:42 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-29 14:49 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:57 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-30 08:39 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-31 13:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-31 09:36 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-31 09:47 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 15:14 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 16:38 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:58 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-02 13:17 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-02 10:05 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:23 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:44 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-30 12:25 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-31 13:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 16:32 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-01 11:03 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-01 12:48 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-02 13:17 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-03 07:16 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-03 12:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-04 08:07 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-04 13:52 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-05 08:52 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-05 07:48 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-06 06:31 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-02 07:34 -0800
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-01 23:55 -0800
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-02 07:40 -0800
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-02 14:59 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 05:08 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-28 13:15 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-29 16:47 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-29 07:29 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-29 14:47 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:53 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-29 15:24 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-28 13:20 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language hankvc@blackhole.lostwells.org (Hank) - 2015-10-28 18:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 12:47 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-28 15:46 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-28 12:50 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 08:33 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 04:55 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-31 15:18 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 19:34 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-29 19:43 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 20:04 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-29 13:28 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-30 16:43 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-29 15:37 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-11-03 06:56 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-29 13:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-29 15:47 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2015-10-29 14:14 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-30 20:50 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-30 13:54 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-28 16:05 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-28 15:52 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-29 12:29 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-29 15:51 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-10-26 09:05 -0600
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:44 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-27 10:28 -0700
Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> - 2015-10-26 17:19 +0000
Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2015-10-26 17:02 -0400
Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-29 19:40 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-10-26 14:34 -0500
Re: the FORTH computer language Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-10-26 21:22 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-27 07:00 +0100
Re: the FORTH computer language timcaffrey420@gmail.com - 2015-10-27 10:15 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-27 20:09 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 06:42 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 15:22 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-26 15:23 -0700
Re: the FORTH computer language Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-27 16:09 -0400
Re: the FORTH computer language Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> - 2015-10-25 19:31 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-26 12:03 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-26 13:10 +0000
Re: the FORTH computer language "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 06:45 +1100
Re: the FORTH computer language Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-24 07:03 +0000
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-23 23:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <84a8r92ptx.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #153273 |
"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: > "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message > news:n0ah0n$1rk$1@dont-email.me... >> ISTR a PDP-11 version where DUP resolved to MOV (SP), -(SP) > > Mea Culpa and a senior moment, I'd forgotten about the Return Stack and the > Variable Stack of FORTH > > Change the above to read MOV (R0), -(R0) It doesn't really matter. I think we are talking at cross purposes. Your discription of Forth as assembler is incorrect because Forth is cross platform. But also your references to Forth implementations including Forth on Windows are not what I am referring to as Forth. At some point in the past, before the existence of Windows, Forth was a finished product. It was implemented as a low level interpreter, and an operating system. It just isn't an assembler. You might argue that it is assembler for a virtual machine. But then if you define a virtual machine which executes LISP then LISP is an assembler.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 00:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n0ef99$r9l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153284 |
"David Hume" <David.Hume@example.com> wrote in message news:84a8r92ptx.fsf@example.com... > "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message >> news:n0ah0n$1rk$1@dont-email.me... >>> ISTR a PDP-11 version where DUP resolved to MOV (SP), -(SP) >> Mea Culpa and a senior moment, I'd forgotten about the Return Stack and >> the >> Variable Stack of FORTH >> Change the above to read MOV (R0), -(R0) > > It doesn't really matter. I think we are talking at cross purposes. Your > discription of Forth as assembler is incorrect because Forth is cross > platform. As are emulations of instruction sets of old minicomputers such as the PDP8, but what is being executed is machine code derived from an assembler, just as FORTH is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 13:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000522D9EAB50649@aca44296.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153285 |
gareth wrote: > "David Hume" <David.Hume@example.com> wrote in message > news:84a8r92ptx.fsf@example.com... >> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:n0ah0n$1rk$1@dont-email.me... >>>> ISTR a PDP-11 version where DUP resolved to MOV (SP), -(SP) >>> Mea Culpa and a senior moment, I'd forgotten about the Return Stack and >>> the >>> Variable Stack of FORTH >>> Change the above to read MOV (R0), -(R0) >> >> It doesn't really matter. I think we are talking at cross purposes. Your >> discription of Forth as assembler is incorrect because Forth is cross >> platform. > > As are emulations of instruction sets of old minicomputers such as the PDP8, > but what is being executed is machine code derived from an assembler, just > as FORTH is. You are wrong. What is being executed is the running machine's machine code _after_ the old PDP instruction has been transformed from the PDP instruction into the running machine's instruction. In this case, the emulator is an app which can spawn a child which "runs" an old OS. that OS can then spawn "jobs" which will run old apps. And so on, and so on. The OS running on the real hardware, schedules the emulator. The emulator then runs the old OS which can do its own scheduling. The emulator is not an OS and doesn't provide "timesharing". ARe there any emulators which are reentrant? /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 15:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn2n8mj.1ur.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #153303 |
On 24 Oct 2015 13:23:14 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > gareth wrote: >> "David Hume" <David.Hume@example.com> wrote in message >> news:84a8r92ptx.fsf@example.com... >>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:n0ah0n$1rk$1@dont-email.me... >>>>> ISTR a PDP-11 version where DUP resolved to MOV (SP), -(SP) >>>> Mea Culpa and a senior moment, I'd forgotten about the Return Stack and >>>> the >>>> Variable Stack of FORTH >>>> Change the above to read MOV (R0), -(R0) >>> >>> It doesn't really matter. I think we are talking at cross purposes. Your >>> discription of Forth as assembler is incorrect because Forth is cross >>> platform. >> >> As are emulations of instruction sets of old minicomputers such as the PDP8, >> but what is being executed is machine code derived from an assembler, just >> as FORTH is. > > You are wrong. What is being executed is the running machine's machine > code _after_ the old PDP instruction has been transformed from the PDP > instruction into the running machine's instruction. In this case, > the emulator is an app which can spawn a child which "runs" an old > OS. that OS can then spawn "jobs" which will run old apps. And > so on, and so on. > > The OS running on the real hardware, schedules the emulator. The emulator > then runs the old OS which can do its own scheduling. The emulator is > not an OS and doesn't provide "timesharing". ARe there any emulators > which are reentrant? The MSDOS Ersatz-11 PDP-11 emulator turns PDP-11 instructions into a sequence of x86 instructions which are executed directly. No use is made of MSDOS and there is a stand-alone version which doesn't require an OS at all. It will do anything (pretty much) that a real PDP-11 can do. (Even run PDP-11 Forth from a stand-alone bootable image - though I haven't actually tried that, but the FIG docs say it can) -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 22:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1q6tfc-5l5.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #153304 |
In article <slrnn2n8mj.1ur.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de>, Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: >On 24 Oct 2015 13:23:14 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> gareth wrote: >>> "David Hume" <David.Hume@example.com> wrote in message >>> news:84a8r92ptx.fsf@example.com... >>>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message >>>>> news:n0ah0n$1rk$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>> ISTR a PDP-11 version where DUP resolved to MOV (SP), -(SP) >>>>> Mea Culpa and a senior moment, I'd forgotten about the Return Stack and >>>>> the >>>>> Variable Stack of FORTH >>>>> Change the above to read MOV (R0), -(R0) >>>> >>>> It doesn't really matter. I think we are talking at cross purposes. Your >>>> discription of Forth as assembler is incorrect because Forth is cross >>>> platform. >>> >>> As are emulations of instruction sets of old minicomputers such as the PDP8, >>> but what is being executed is machine code derived from an assembler, just >>> as FORTH is. >> >> You are wrong. What is being executed is the running machine's machine >> code _after_ the old PDP instruction has been transformed from the PDP >> instruction into the running machine's instruction. In this case, >> the emulator is an app which can spawn a child which "runs" an old >> OS. that OS can then spawn "jobs" which will run old apps. And >> so on, and so on. >> >> The OS running on the real hardware, schedules the emulator. The emulator >> then runs the old OS which can do its own scheduling. The emulator is >> not an OS and doesn't provide "timesharing". ARe there any emulators >> which are reentrant? > >The MSDOS Ersatz-11 PDP-11 emulator turns PDP-11 instructions into a >sequence of x86 instructions which are executed directly. No use is >made of MSDOS and there is a stand-alone version which doesn't require >an OS at all. It will do anything (pretty much) that a real PDP-11 >can do. (Even run PDP-11 Forth from a stand-alone bootable image - >though I haven't actually tried that, but the FIG docs say it can) and the x86 instructions may be executed by microcode, or even morphed into some other code, like the transmeta designs do. So what is the "real" code may differ a bit depending on the viewpoint. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000522EE124AE7C6@aca42931.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153320 |
Morten Reistad wrote: > In article <slrnn2n8mj.1ur.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de>, > Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: >>On 24 Oct 2015 13:23:14 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> gareth wrote: >>>> "David Hume" <David.Hume@example.com> wrote in message >>>> news:84a8r92ptx.fsf@example.com... >>>>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>>>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message >>>>>> news:n0ah0n$1rk$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>>> ISTR a PDP-11 version where DUP resolved to MOV (SP), -(SP) >>>>>> Mea Culpa and a senior moment, I'd forgotten about the Return Stack and >>>>>> the >>>>>> Variable Stack of FORTH >>>>>> Change the above to read MOV (R0), -(R0) >>>>> >>>>> It doesn't really matter. I think we are talking at cross purposes. Your >>>>> discription of Forth as assembler is incorrect because Forth is cross >>>>> platform. >>>> >>>> As are emulations of instruction sets of old minicomputers such as the PDP8, >>>> but what is being executed is machine code derived from an assembler, just >>>> as FORTH is. >>> >>> You are wrong. What is being executed is the running machine's machine >>> code _after_ the old PDP instruction has been transformed from the PDP >>> instruction into the running machine's instruction. In this case, >>> the emulator is an app which can spawn a child which "runs" an old >>> OS. that OS can then spawn "jobs" which will run old apps. And >>> so on, and so on. >>> >>> The OS running on the real hardware, schedules the emulator. The emulator >>> then runs the old OS which can do its own scheduling. The emulator is >>> not an OS and doesn't provide "timesharing". ARe there any emulators >>> which are reentrant? >> >>The MSDOS Ersatz-11 PDP-11 emulator turns PDP-11 instructions into a >>sequence of x86 instructions which are executed directly. No use is >>made of MSDOS and there is a stand-alone version which doesn't require >>an OS at all. It will do anything (pretty much) that a real PDP-11 >>can do. (Even run PDP-11 Forth from a stand-alone bootable image - >>though I haven't actually tried that, but the FIG docs say it can) > > and the x86 instructions may be executed by microcode, or even morphed > into some other code, like the transmeta designs do. > > So what is the "real" code may differ a bit depending on the viewpoint. The viewpoint should be taken from the hardware POV to define which is an HLL in these cases. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000522EE0D6F6493@aca42931.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153304 |
Stan Barr wrote: > On 24 Oct 2015 13:23:14 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> gareth wrote: >>> "David Hume" <David.Hume@example.com> wrote in message >>> news:84a8r92ptx.fsf@example.com... >>>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> writes: >>>>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message >>>>> news:n0ah0n$1rk$1@dont-email.me... >>>>>> ISTR a PDP-11 version where DUP resolved to MOV (SP), -(SP) >>>>> Mea Culpa and a senior moment, I'd forgotten about the Return Stack and >>>>> the >>>>> Variable Stack of FORTH >>>>> Change the above to read MOV (R0), -(R0) >>>> >>>> It doesn't really matter. I think we are talking at cross purposes. Your >>>> discription of Forth as assembler is incorrect because Forth is cross >>>> platform. >>> >>> As are emulations of instruction sets of old minicomputers such as the PDP8, >>> but what is being executed is machine code derived from an assembler, just >>> as FORTH is. >> >> You are wrong. What is being executed is the running machine's machine >> code _after_ the old PDP instruction has been transformed from the PDP >> instruction into the running machine's instruction. In this case, >> the emulator is an app which can spawn a child which "runs" an old >> OS. that OS can then spawn "jobs" which will run old apps. And >> so on, and so on. >> >> The OS running on the real hardware, schedules the emulator. The emulator >> then runs the old OS which can do its own scheduling. The emulator is >> not an OS and doesn't provide "timesharing". ARe there any emulators >> which are reentrant? > > The MSDOS Ersatz-11 PDP-11 emulator turns PDP-11 instructions into a > sequence of x86 instructions which are executed directly. No use is > made of MSDOS and there is a stand-alone version which doesn't require > an OS at all. It will do anything (pretty much) that a real PDP-11 > can do. (Even run PDP-11 Forth from a stand-alone bootable image - > though I haven't actually tried that, but the FIG docs say it can) Does the stand-alone version do all the disk I/O and network management, too? /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 15:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn2puob.2vbt.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #153325 |
On 25 Oct 2015 13:30:18 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >> >> The MSDOS Ersatz-11 PDP-11 emulator turns PDP-11 instructions into a >> sequence of x86 instructions which are executed directly. No use is >> made of MSDOS and there is a stand-alone version which doesn't require >> an OS at all. It will do anything (pretty much) that a real PDP-11 >> can do. (Even run PDP-11 Forth from a stand-alone bootable image - >> though I haven't actually tried that, but the FIG docs say it can) > > Does the stand-alone version do all the disk I/O and network > management, too? Good question. I've not tried the stand-alone version but here's the blurb from the website: "Ersatz-11 is available in a stand-alone version, which boots from a hard disk partition (or USB drive or floppy disk) and runs on a bare PC with no operating system. It includes a FAT12/16/32 file-system driver. It provides most of the benefits of the DOS version (mainly direct access to hardware, such as Q-/Unibus adapters or multi-serial cards, and reduced exposure to changing software environments) to users who don't want to run DOS. It truly is a stand-alone system (there's no DOS hidden inside) and it boots very quickly directly to the E11> prompt." Expensive for commercial use, but free for hobbyists. I run RSTS/E v7 under the MSDOS version. (And FIGForth under RT-11...) With my Micro 11/73 out of commission it makes a great substitute. -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn2pvk4.1b8.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #153326 |
On 25 Oct 2015 15:53:47 GMT, Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> wrote: > Good question. I've not tried the stand-alone version but here's the > blurb from the website: Sorry, I forgot: http://www.dbit.com -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 12:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000523011311B008@aca2d620.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153326 |
Stan Barr wrote: > On 25 Oct 2015 13:30:18 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>> >>> The MSDOS Ersatz-11 PDP-11 emulator turns PDP-11 instructions into a >>> sequence of x86 instructions which are executed directly. No use is >>> made of MSDOS and there is a stand-alone version which doesn't require >>> an OS at all. It will do anything (pretty much) that a real PDP-11 >>> can do. (Even run PDP-11 Forth from a stand-alone bootable image - >>> though I haven't actually tried that, but the FIG docs say it can) >> >> Does the stand-alone version do all the disk I/O and network >> management, too? > > Good question. I've not tried the stand-alone version but here's the > blurb from the website: > > "Ersatz-11 is available in a stand-alone version, which boots from a > hard disk partition (or USB drive or floppy disk) and runs on a bare > PC with no operating system. It includes a FAT12/16/32 file-system > driver. It provides most of the benefits of the DOS version (mainly > direct access to hardware, such as Q-/Unibus adapters or multi-serial > cards, and reduced exposure to changing software environments) to > users who don't want to run DOS. It truly is a stand-alone system > (there's no DOS hidden inside) and it boots very quickly directly to > the E11> prompt." > > Expensive for commercial use, but free for hobbyists. I run RSTS/E v7 > under the MSDOS version. (And FIGForth under RT-11...) > With my Micro 11/73 out of commission it makes a great substitute. > It sounds like a functional microcode which inputs -11 instructions and outputs the PC's instructions. which CPUs does it support? It also sounds like a headache waiting to happen w.r.t. debugging if something went wrong. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 16:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn2sktd.2vne.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #153340 |
On 26 Oct 2015 12:08:27 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: > Stan Barr wrote: >> On 25 Oct 2015 13:30:18 GMT, jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> The MSDOS Ersatz-11 PDP-11 emulator turns PDP-11 instructions into a >>>> sequence of x86 instructions which are executed directly. No use is >>>> made of MSDOS and there is a stand-alone version which doesn't require >>>> an OS at all. It will do anything (pretty much) that a real PDP-11 >>>> can do. (Even run PDP-11 Forth from a stand-alone bootable image - >>>> though I haven't actually tried that, but the FIG docs say it can) >>> >>> Does the stand-alone version do all the disk I/O and network >>> management, too? >> >> Good question. I've not tried the stand-alone version but here's the >> blurb from the website: >> >> "Ersatz-11 is available in a stand-alone version, which boots from a >> hard disk partition (or USB drive or floppy disk) and runs on a bare >> PC with no operating system. It includes a FAT12/16/32 file-system >> driver. It provides most of the benefits of the DOS version (mainly >> direct access to hardware, such as Q-/Unibus adapters or multi-serial >> cards, and reduced exposure to changing software environments) to >> users who don't want to run DOS. It truly is a stand-alone system >> (there's no DOS hidden inside) and it boots very quickly directly to >> the E11> prompt." >> >> Expensive for commercial use, but free for hobbyists. I run RSTS/E v7 >> under the MSDOS version. (And FIGForth under RT-11...) >> With my Micro 11/73 out of commission it makes a great substitute. >> > > It sounds like a functional microcode which inputs -11 instructions > and outputs the PC's instructions. which CPUs does it support? It > also sounds like a headache waiting to happen w.r.t. debugging if > something went wrong. > > /BAH Extracted from the manual: Ersatz-11 emulates the entire PDP-11 system in software, including most standard disks, tapes, serial devices, and network interfaces. Facilities are provided to integrate non-standard device emulations into E11 when necessary. E11 is intended to boot and run any PDP-11 operating system. It has been tested with RT-11 (all flavors), RSX-11M, RSX-11M-PLUS, RSTS/E, IAS, TSX-Plus, 2.9BSD and 2.11BSD UNIX, DSM-11, DOS/BATCH, Fuzzball(BOS), the Fox 2/30 OS, and XXDP+. Emulated configuration PDP-11/03, PDP-11/04, PDP-11/05, PDP-11/20, PDP-11/23, PDP-11/24, PDP-11/34a, PDP-11/40, PDP-11/44, PDP-11/45, PDP-11/53, PDP-11/60, PDP-11/70, PDP-11/73,PDP-11/74, PDP-11/83, PDP-11/84, PDP-11/93, or PDP-11/94 CPU with individually selectable features FP11/FPF11/FPJ11 (etc.) floating point processor, FIS floating instruction set option, KE11A/B extended arithmetic element (EAE) 4 MB main memory Many different models of disks, tapes, serial and network devices (see tables below). I've not actually tried debugging anything (yet!). -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 16:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n0g7s1$he$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153303 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM000522D9EAB50649@aca44296.ipt.aol.com... > You are wrong. What is being executed is the running machine's machine > code _after_ the old PDP instruction has been transformed from the PDP > instruction into the running machine's instruction. In this case, > the emulator is an app which can spawn a child which "runs" an old > OS. that OS can then spawn "jobs" which will run old apps. And > so on, and so on. What was running in the later versions of the PDP-11 that were microcoded?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 13:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM000522EE18B332A4@aca42931.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153305 |
gareth wrote: > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM000522D9EAB50649@aca44296.ipt.aol.com... >> You are wrong. What is being executed is the running machine's machine >> code _after_ the old PDP instruction has been transformed from the PDP >> instruction into the running machine's instruction. In this case, >> the emulator is an app which can spawn a child which "runs" an old >> OS. that OS can then spawn "jobs" which will run old apps. And >> so on, and so on. > > What was running in the later versions of the PDP-11 that were microcoded? I don't understand your question. What microcode? /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 16:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0j050$2n8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153324 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM000522EE18B332A4@aca42931.ipt.aol.com... > gareth wrote: >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM000522D9EAB50649@aca44296.ipt.aol.com... >>> You are wrong. What is being executed is the running machine's machine >>> code _after_ the old PDP instruction has been transformed from the PDP >>> instruction into the running machine's instruction. In this case, >>> the emulator is an app which can spawn a child which "runs" an old >>> OS. that OS can then spawn "jobs" which will run old apps. And >>> so on, and so on. >> >> What was running in the later versions of the PDP-11 that were >> microcoded? > > I don't understand your question. What microcode? The first PDP-11 That I encountered in 1971 was all TTL. Those that I encountered 4 or 5 years later were microcoded.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 12:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052300F849B5FD@aca2d620.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153329 |
gareth wrote: > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM000522EE18B332A4@aca42931.ipt.aol.com... >> gareth wrote: >>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:PM000522D9EAB50649@aca44296.ipt.aol.com... >>>> You are wrong. What is being executed is the running machine's machine >>>> code _after_ the old PDP instruction has been transformed from the PDP >>>> instruction into the running machine's instruction. In this case, >>>> the emulator is an app which can spawn a child which "runs" an old >>>> OS. that OS can then spawn "jobs" which will run old apps. And >>>> so on, and so on. >>> >>> What was running in the later versions of the PDP-11 that were >>> microcoded? >> >> I don't understand your question. What microcode? > > The first PDP-11 That I encountered in 1971 was all TTL. Those that I > encountered > 4 or 5 years later were microcoded. I don't remember any microcode. But, not that I think of it, the -11s I dealt with were remote stations and the ones on the KL front end. Those didn't have microcode. If they did, I sure don't remember the filenames. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 06:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11ba64cd-50b8-4778-9c06-97e204309109@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153338 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 6:02:25 AM UTC-6, jmfbahciv wrote: > Those didn't have microcode. If they did, I sure > don't remember the filenames. Microcode isn't (necessarily) stored in files. It's a way to implement the computer's instruction set, and is still built into the hardware in most cases. If it is loaded externally, a special mechanism is needed so that it can happen when the computer doesn't even work yet. (Thus, as an example, one IBM 370 model loaded the microcode from the first 8-inch floppy disk - it wasn't in a file on one of the 3330 hard drives hooked to it.) The PDP-9 was microcoded (which surprised me, given the nature of its instruction set) - Gordon Bell notes that in his book "Computer Engineering". John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 07:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f7b69272-8c9a-4a46-a0ae-6f5e9f5a41fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153342 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 7:49:46 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: > The PDP-9 was microcoded (which surprised me, given the nature of its > instruction set) - Gordon Bell notes that in his book "Computer Engineering". Reviewing that book, I first saw a mention that the 11/20 was hardwired, and the PDP-11 instruction set was simple enough not to make microcode compulsory. Then it was noted that the PDP-11/60 used microcode, and even had a writable control store, so that customers could add their own functionality; and that the 11/40 made a more limited use of microcode. Later, it was noted that all the PDP-11 models used microcoded control units with the sole exception of the 11/20 (page 329) as someone noted in this thread. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 07:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd153a4b-1988-4a90-8647-73b425f793d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153343 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:02:23 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 7:49:46 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: > > The PDP-9 was microcoded (which surprised me, given the nature of its > > instruction set) - Gordon Bell notes that in his book "Computer Engineering". > Reviewing that book, I first saw a mention that the 11/20 was hardwired, and > the PDP-11 instruction set was simple enough not to make microcode compulsory. > Then it was noted that the PDP-11/60 used microcode, and even had a writable > control store, so that customers could add their own functionality; and that > the 11/40 made a more limited use of microcode. Later, it was noted that all > the PDP-11 models used microcoded control units with the sole exception of the > 11/20 (page 329) as someone noted in this thread. There's even a table on page 337: The LSI-11 used 22-bit wide vertical microinstructions; the others used horizontal microinstructions: The 11/04 and 11/10 used 40-bit microinstructions; The 11/34 and 11/60 used 48-bit microinstructions; The 11/40 used 56-bit microinstructions; and The 11/45 used 64-bit microinstructions. The PDP-11/70, however, is not mentioned in that table. The Wikipedia page on the PDP-11 refers to the /35 as a version of the /40, and the /50, /55, and /70 as versions of the /45, but the extent to which this is true of the internal implementation is not clear. The /44 was a bit-slice design, so it would have had to have been microprogrammed, but no details are provided. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 07:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1daba0d1-8221-483e-906d-07bdad7a8ef2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153344 |
I've been able to confirm that the 11/70 had a 64-bit microcode word (as did the 11/45) from an 11/70 hardware student handout from Al Kossow's site. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2dc67d92-9f86-4198-a993-bec079fefc32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153344 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 8:18:49 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote: > The /44 was a bit-slice design, so it would have had to have been > microprogrammed, but no details are provided. From the 11/44 System Manual, I see that it used 56-bit microprogram words, like the /40, but not necessarily in the same format. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web