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 | 16 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 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
| From | pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-29 19:40 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: PDP-11, was the FORTH computer language |
| Message-ID | <n0tsnm$osd$1@pechter.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #153362 |
In article <mddk2q98htc.fsf@panix5.panix.com>, Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote: >John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> writes: > >>>> The first PDP-11 That I encountered in 1971 was all TTL. Those that I >>>> encountered 4 or 5 years later were microcoded. > >>> I don't remember any microcode. > >> You need to remember harder. The original PDP-11/20 was hardcoded, but >> every subsequent PDP-11 was microcoded. > >> The 11/60 even had provision for WCS and user microcode, although I >> don't think many if any used it. > >Richie Lary, of PS/8 (OS/8) fame, is reputed to have implemented a PDP-8 on > the 11/60 hardware with this feature. I have heard this from a mutual > friend, in Mr. Lary's presence; he simply grinned. > >-- >Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com > the russet leaves of an autumn oak/inspire once again the failed poet/ > to take up his pen/and essay to place his meagre words upon the page... DEC Field Service rumor said Reuters used this (or something similar) to run PDP8 software on PDP11's. I don't know whether they ran this under an 11 OS to talk to the disk hardware or fully had PDP11's booting with the microcode in place and PDP8 IO devices through some kind of Unibus to Omnibus adapter... or special device drivers... Never saw it myself... I think it's great. Bill -- -- Digital had it then. Don't you wish you could buy it now! pechter-at-gmail.com http://xkcd.com/705/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 14:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n0lv4h$fks$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153338 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052300F849B5FD@aca2d620.ipt.aol.com... > 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. > Engineers normally write the microcode during the design phase of a processor, storing it in a ROM (read-only memory) or PLA (programmable logic array)[2] structure, or in a combination of both.[3] However, machines also exist that have some or all microcode stored in SRAM or flash memory. This is traditionally denoted as "writeable control store" in the context of computers, which can be either read-only or read-write memory. In the latter case, the CPU initialization process loads microcode into the control store from another storage medium, with the possibility of altering the microcode to correct bugs in the instruction set, or to implement new machine instructions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcode -- numerist at aquaporin4 dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 21:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d97jrsFij67U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153355 |
On 2015-10-26, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> However, machines also
> exist that have some or all microcode stored in SRAM or flash memory. This
> is traditionally denoted as "writeable control store" in the context of
> computers, which can be either read-only or read-write memory. In the latter
> case, the CPU initialization process loads microcode into the control store
> from another storage medium, with the possibility of altering the microcode
> to correct bugs in the instruction set, or to implement new machine
> instructions.
I have worked on two such; the Xerox D-machine and DG MV8000.
Never wrote any microcode, though.
--
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 7th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3181
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 07:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rhg3gc-q65.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #153364 |
In article <d97jrsFij67U1@mid.individual.net>, Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote: >On 2015-10-26, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: > >> However, machines also >> exist that have some or all microcode stored in SRAM or flash memory. This >> is traditionally denoted as "writeable control store" in the context of >> computers, which can be either read-only or read-write memory. In the latter >> case, the CPU initialization process loads microcode into the control store >> from another storage medium, with the possibility of altering the microcode >> to correct bugs in the instruction set, or to implement new machine >> instructions. > >I have worked on two such; the Xerox D-machine and DG MV8000. > >Never wrote any microcode, though. The whole range of Prime 50-series machines have this feature. They all have console processors to load this microcode and simulate some old switch settings. I still remember the "loadm cpu_ucode; sysclr; boot 14114" command. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | timcaffrey420@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 10:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf81f7f2-cb27-4cae-80cf-13d6dc8fc1ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153374 |
On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 2:04:46 AM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <d97jrsFij67U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote:
> >On 2015-10-26, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> >
> >> However, machines also
> >> exist that have some or all microcode stored in SRAM or flash memory. This
> >> is traditionally denoted as "writeable control store" in the context of
> >> computers, which can be either read-only or read-write memory. In the latter
> >> case, the CPU initialization process loads microcode into the control store
> >> from another storage medium, with the possibility of altering the microcode
> >> to correct bugs in the instruction set, or to implement new machine
> >> instructions.
> >
> >I have worked on two such; the Xerox D-machine and DG MV8000.
> >
> >Never wrote any microcode, though.
>
> The whole range of Prime 50-series machines have this feature.
>
> They all have console processors to load this microcode and
> simulate some old switch settings.
>
> I still remember the "loadm cpu_ucode; sysclr; boot 14114"
> command.
>
> -- mrr
The HP 21MX also allowed user written microcode. You could buy the WCS board
for development, then use the PROM board to make them permanent. You could
create lots of new instructions. HP would even sell you a microcode assembler.
- Tim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 20:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <SRQXx.7033$a85.1502@fx19.iad> |
| In reply to | #153386 |
timcaffrey420@gmail.com writes: >On Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 2:04:46 AM UTC-4, Morten Reistad wrote: >> In article <d97jrsFij67U1@mid.individual.net>, >> Huge <usenet@huge.org.uk> wrote: >> >On 2015-10-26, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote: >> > >> >> However, machines also >> >> exist that have some or all microcode stored in SRAM or flash memory. This >> >> is traditionally denoted as "writeable control store" in the context of >> >> computers, which can be either read-only or read-write memory. In the latter >> >> case, the CPU initialization process loads microcode into the control store >> >> from another storage medium, with the possibility of altering the microcode >> >> to correct bugs in the instruction set, or to implement new machine >> >> instructions. >> > >> >I have worked on two such; the Xerox D-machine and DG MV8000. >> > >> >Never wrote any microcode, though. >> >> The whole range of Prime 50-series machines have this feature. >> >> They all have console processors to load this microcode and >> simulate some old switch settings. >> >> I still remember the "loadm cpu_ucode; sysclr; boot 14114" >> command. >> >> -- mrr > >The HP 21MX also allowed user written microcode. You could buy the WCS board >for development, then use the PROM board to make them permanent. You could >create lots of new instructions. HP would even sell you a microcode assembler. > The burroughs medium systems 900 series (2900/3900/4900) and V-series loaded the microcode (called control store) after power-on from an 8" floppies on the 2900/3900, 5 1/4" on the 4900/V-380 and B-25 on the V500's. CLEAR; CLEAR MEM ABS; LOAD CS CLEAR; LOAD MCP; Customers could not load their own, however. Modern Intel/AMD processors load microcode after reset (usually in the BIOS) to handle certain micro-ops and instructions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 06:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d97e1oFh3mqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153338 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052300F849B5FD@aca2d620.ipt.aol.com... > 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. Microcode doesn’t have to be loaded at boot time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6add0dbe-273c-4837-843a-2360df0b4bcd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153357 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 1:42:51 PM UTC-6, Rod Speed wrote: > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM00052300F849B5FD@aca2d620.ipt.aol.com... > > 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. > Microcode doesn't have to be loaded at boot time. Phrasing it that way leads to confusion. A FORTRAN compiler doesn't have to be loaded at boot time, because nobody using the computer may be using FORTRAN right away. The microcode may not have to be read in from anywhere, it may be on ROM right in the computer, but it had darn well better be wherever it is going to get executed from before the computer even starts to boot, since none of its instructions will work without it. You must not assume that everyone reading your post will even know what microcode _is_. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 15:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1e1eef39-7173-443c-82f2-6ed6ed461858@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153357 |
On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 1:42:51 PM UTC-6, Rod Speed wrote: > "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message > news:PM00052300F849B5FD@aca2d620.ipt.aol.com... > > 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. > Microcode doesn't have to be loaded at boot time. Phrasing it that way leads to confusion. A FORTRAN compiler doesn't have to be loaded at boot time, because nobody using the computer may be using FORTRAN right away. The microcode may not have to be read in from anywhere, it may be on ROM right in the computer, but it had darn well better be wherever it is going to get executed from before the computer even starts to boot, since none of its instructions will work without it. You must not assume that everyone reading your post will even know what microcode _is_. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 19:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0oksb07sl@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153370 |
On 2015-10-26, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 1:42:51 PM UTC-6, Rod Speed wrote: > >> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >> news:PM00052300F849B5FD@aca2d620.ipt.aol.com... >> >>> 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. >> >> Microcode doesn't have to be loaded at boot time. > > Phrasing it that way leads to confusion. A FORTRAN compiler doesn't have > to be loaded at boot time, because nobody using the computer may be using > FORTRAN right away. > > The microcode may not have to be read in from anywhere, it may be on ROM > right in the computer, but it had darn well better be wherever it is going > to get executed from before the computer even starts to boot, since none > of its instructions will work without it. > > You must not assume that everyone reading your post will even know what > microcode _is_. It gets even fuzzier when p-code is involved. A friend worked in a Burroughs 17xx shop. Each language's compiler generated different p-code; the required interpreter would be loaded at run time if it wasn't already in memory. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 16:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1510271608030.29684@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #153395 |
On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2015-10-26, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote: > >> On Monday, October 26, 2015 at 1:42:51 PM UTC-6, Rod Speed wrote: >> >>> "jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >>> news:PM00052300F849B5FD@aca2d620.ipt.aol.com... >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Microcode doesn't have to be loaded at boot time. >> >> Phrasing it that way leads to confusion. A FORTRAN compiler doesn't have >> to be loaded at boot time, because nobody using the computer may be using >> FORTRAN right away. >> >> The microcode may not have to be read in from anywhere, it may be on ROM >> right in the computer, but it had darn well better be wherever it is going >> to get executed from before the computer even starts to boot, since none >> of its instructions will work without it. >> >> You must not assume that everyone reading your post will even know what >> microcode _is_. > > It gets even fuzzier when p-code is involved. A friend worked in a > Burroughs 17xx shop. Each language's compiler generated different > p-code; the required interpreter would be loaded at run time if it > wasn't already in memory. > This somehow reminds me of the 6502 that run Forth. Rockwell issued it at some point, and it wasn't clear what it was. But eventually it was revealed that it was merely a 6502 with ROM built in, so it was nothing so exotic as a 6502 that run FORTH directly, but a 6502 with a FORTH interpreter built into ROM. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Elliott Roper <nospam@yrl.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-25 19:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0001HW.1BDD65860129B6FC7000003223CF@news.giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #153324 |
On 25 Oct 2015, jmfbahciv wrote (in article <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? I think nearly every PDP-11 except the 11/20 executed their instructions in microcode. That news came as a blow to me, when I thought I was red hot at programming the bare metal. (I never did get any good at microprogramming the ones that let you do so. A major ego blow) -- To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 12:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM00052300EEB40AB7@aca2d620.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153331 |
Elliott Roper wrote: > On 25 Oct 2015, jmfbahciv wrote > (in article <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? > I think nearly every PDP-11 except the 11/20 executed their instructions in > microcode. That news came as a blow to me, when I thought I was red hot at > programming the bare metal. > (I never did get any good at microprogramming the ones that let you do so. A > major ego blow) Coding microcode required a strange mindset :-). I don't remember -11s having microcode. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-26 13:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rDpXx.122$mr5.9@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #153339 |
jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> writes: >Elliott Roper wrote: >> On 25 Oct 2015, jmfbahciv wrote >> (in article <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? >> I think nearly every PDP-11 except the 11/20 executed their instructions in >> microcode. That news came as a blow to me, when I thought I was red hot at >> programming the bare metal. >> (I never did get any good at microprogramming the ones that let you do so. A >> major ego blow) > >Coding microcode required a strange mindset :-). I don't remember -11s having >microcode. WCS (writable control store). We used it on IIRC a 11/45 that was used as a terminal concentrator in the late 70's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-27 06:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d97e6nFh51dU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153339 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM00052300EEB40AB7@aca2d620.ipt.aol.com... > Elliott Roper wrote: >> On 25 Oct 2015, jmfbahciv wrote >> (in article <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? >> I think nearly every PDP-11 except the 11/20 executed their instructions >> in >> microcode. That news came as a blow to me, when I thought I was red hot >> at >> programming the bare metal. >> (I never did get any good at microprogramming the ones that let you do >> so. A >> major ego blow) > > Coding microcode required a strange mindset :-). I don't remember -11s > having > microcode. They did anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-24 07:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn2mb9t.8l7.plan.b@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #153284 |
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 23:16:26 +0100, David Hume <David.Hume@example.com> wrote: > > 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. You can consider Forth as an assembler for a virtual machine. That machine has been implemented in hardware many times and there are several gate-array designs out there now. A commercial one a few years back was the Novix NC4016 which morphed into a Harris chip. See: http://en.wikichip.org/wiki/Novix_NC4016 I still use a Forth program I originally wrote in the '80s... -- Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web