|
Ken Seefried wrote: > Has anyone done an FPGA model for the PDP-11 instruction set? > The PDP 11 is still being produced but not by DEC or who ever owns them now, so the instruction set is still copywrite. |
|
|
Re: PDP-11
Started by ●October 29, 2002
Reply by ●October 29, 20022002-10-29
Reply by ●October 30, 20022002-10-30
|
Ken Seefried wrote: > Has anyone done an FPGA model for the PDP-11 instruction set? ben franchuk <> wrote: > The PDP 11 is still being produced but not by DEC or who ever owns them > now, so the instruction set is still copywrite. If an instruction set *could* be protected by copyright, whether the owner was still producing the machine would be completely irrelevant to the copyright status. However, in general instruction sets can't be copyrighted. Patents can apply, but they don't last long enough for it to be an issue for the PDP-11. |
Reply by ●October 30, 20022002-10-30
|
It has not been produced by DEC in a while. DEC was bought by Compaq, which was bought by HP. Theoretically, HP owns the copyright, but it may be dead given that all DEC/Compaq processors are being scuttled in favor of IA-64. Pat ben franchuk wrote: > Ken Seefried wrote: > >>Has anyone done an FPGA model for the PDP-11 instruction set? >> > > The PDP 11 is still being produced but not by DEC or who ever owns > them now, so the instruction set is still copywrite. > > To post a message, send it to: > To unsubscribe, send a blank message to: > > ">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > |
|
|
Reply by ●October 30, 20022002-10-30
|
>>>Has anyone done an FPGA model for the PDP-11 instruction set?
.... >It has not been produced by DEC in a while. DEC was bought by Compaq, >which was bought by HP. Theoretically, HP owns the copyright ... .... I believe DEC sold the PDP-11 product line to Mentec long before their acquisition by Compaq. You can still buy '11-compatible processors from them, as well as licenses for RSX-11, RST/S, etc. (See http://www.mentec.com ) Memtec's latest PDP-11 CPUs claims to be based on ASICs, not FPGA. Roberto Waltman |
Reply by ●October 30, 20022002-10-30
|
Eric Smith wrote: >>The PDP 11 is still being produced but not by DEC or who ever owns them >>now, so the instruction set is still copywrite. > If an instruction set *could* be protected by copyright, whether the > owner was still producing the machine would be completely irrelevant > to the copyright status. Maybie copywrite is the wrong word, but they are still being built. Also old PDP-11's can be found but not for a song like a few years past. > However, in general instruction sets can't be copyrighted. Patents > can apply, but they don't last long enough for it to be an issue for > the PDP-11. I belive the use of the PC as general register was a patented idea. |
|
|
Reply by ●October 30, 20022002-10-30
|
On Wed, 2002-10-30 at 14:01, ben franchuk wrote: > Eric Smith wrote: > > Also old PDP-11's can be found but not for a song like a few years > past. > I got my PDP-11/24 (with 1024 MBytes ram, RA-80 120Meg drive and 2 RL02 10Meg removable drives) for the cost of gas and a hotel room. This was just a couple of months ago. I only had to go pick it up. It was in 2 19 inch racks that just barely fit in the back of the Bronco. -- Christopher L McNabb Tel: 540 231 7554 Operating Systems Analyst Email: Virginia Tech ICBM: 37.205622N 80.414595W GMRS: WPSR255 ARS: N2UX Grid Sq: EM97SD |
|
|
Reply by ●October 30, 20022002-10-30
|
Christopher McNabb wrote: > I got my PDP-11/24 (with 1024 MBytes ram, RA-80 120Meg drive and 2 RL02 > 10Meg removable drives) for the cost of gas and a hotel room. This was > just a couple of months ago. I only had to go pick it up. It was in 2 > 19 inch racks that just barely fit in the back of the Bronco. > And still a REAL computer compared with the 1 GHZ intel crap and bloated OS's running on 100 Gig drives that can barley service a SERIAL interupt. How since I favor 12/24 bit achitecture any FPGA's I design will be towards that. Mind you had the PDP-11 archiecture been 12/24 bits that may have given us a diffent idea just what a 'small' computer could do. DEC could have had the PC out if they had considered the 'home-brew/hobby market'. I have not done a FPGA - PDP 11 12/24 bits style because the FPGA I am using does not have LOGIC cells needed, and still stay small-ish. |
Reply by ●October 30, 20022002-10-30
|
I am not aware of any FPGA implementations of a pdp-11. I have a special fondness for the 11. Way back, in the good old days, I learned C on the old Waterloo MATH UNIX system, a pdp-11/45 running a modified Unix v6, at the University of Waterloo, room MC6098. Some day, I will build a pdp-11 system in an FPGA, if only for my own personal use. Until then, the real thing will have to do. I have one here that I have cobbled together from an SBox KDJ11 running in a MicroVAX 3400 (BA213) chassis. It's equivalent to a pdp-11/53+. The two attached email messages give some details. Jan Gray, Gray Research LLC -----Original Message----- From: Jan Gray Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 6:55 PM Subject: 2.11 BSD now up and running on my pdp-11/53+ The trip backwards in time continues! I am just now running Unix on actual pdp-11 hardware -- for the first time since 1981 or so. What: KDJ11 and CMD CQD223/TM mounted in my BA213 (for the time being, an ex-MicroVAX 3400 (like http://www.mcmanis.com/chuck/computers/vaxen/ba213.htm)), attached to a 512 MB SCSI disk and a TSZ07 9-track tape drive. Many thanks to Jonathan Engdahl for his very helpful web site (http://users.safeaccess.com/engdahl/PDP-11_53.htm), and to Chuck McManis for http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-vax/2001/01/28/0001.html (amongst other things), and especially to Steve Schultz for maintaining 2.11 BSD across millennia! Thank you. Sample session: 45Boot from vt(0,0,0) at 0177560 : ra(0,0,0)unix Boot: bootdev400 bootcsr72150 2.11 BSD UNIX #115: Sat Apr 22 19:07:25 PDT 2000 :/usr/src/sys/GENERIC ra0: Ver 6 mod 13 ra0: RA81 size39328 phys mem = 1572864 avail mem = 1348928 user mem = 307200 hk ? csr 177440 vector 210 skipped: No CSR. ht ? csr 172440 vector 224 skipped: No CSR. ra 0 csr 172150 vector 154 vectorset attached rl ? csr 174400 vector 160 skipped: No CSR. tm ? csr 172520 vector 224 skipped: No CSR. tms 0 csr 174500 vector 260 vectorset attached ts ? csr 172520 vector 224 skipped: No CSR. xp ? csr 176700 vector 254 skipped: No CSR. erase, kill ^U, intr ^C # ^D Fast boot ... skipping disk checks checking quotas: done. Assuming non-networking system ... checking for core dump... preserving editor files clearing /tmp standard daemons: update cron accounting. starting lpd starting local daemons: sendmail. Tue Mar 19 18:09:43 PST 2002 2.11 BSD UNIX (curly.2bsd.com) (console) login: jan Last login: Tue Mar 19 18:05:53 on console 2.11 BSD UNIX #115: Sat Apr 22 19:07:25 PDT 2000 $ cat hello.c int main() { printf("hello world!\n"); return 0; } $ cc -O -S hello.c; cat hello.s .globl _main .text _main: ~~main: jsr r5,csv mov $L4,(sp) jsr pc,*$_printf clr r0 jmp cret .globl .data L4:.byte 150,145,154,154,157,40,167,157,162,154,144,41,12,0 $ cc -O -o hello hello.c; ls -l hello -rwxr-x--x 1 jan 5333 Mar 19 18:10 hello $ ./hello hello world! $ ^D For historical verisimilitude I first cut a 9 track distribution tape, then I installed from that (except I had to boot from a virtual tape bootstrap loader because for some reason I can't boot from my real tape drive MU0). Note there's also a small problem booting from my MSCP controller's DU0 hard disk, so I currently boot it with a "virtual tape" boot loader. I saw a fix in the list archives and I think I just have to build and install a new rauboot. Now to wait for the DESQA and TQK70 to come in the mail. -----Original Message----- From: Jan Gray Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 10:52 PM Subject: RE: 2.11 BSD now up and running on my pdp-11/53+ I received my replacement TQK70 and my DESQA. My TK70 is now working, and I am now running a networked build of 2.11BSD: The new TQK70 worked fine, and I have things set up so it is the primary TMSCP CSR at 174500 and rejumpered my CMD CQD223/TM to 160404. I edited my /etc/dtab to tell it to look for a second TMSCP control register at 160404 and that worked. The TK70+TQK70 is terribly slow, in the 1-2 MB/minute ballpark, even with dd bs0k. Streaming? In my dreams. Rather, a lot of 2-steps-forward-1-step-back. By the way, the 11's address space limitations really comes home when you realize that you can't dd bsdk no matter what... Also, there is a bug in dd that prevents from dd bs2k. (It's very nice to have the source to look at.) Eww, the code sometimes doesn't even declare the formal argument types and return types of functions. As for the DESQA, that worked first time. I built a new kernel, config JANS11, based off CURLY, with these changes: 1. I didn't know what the BOOTDEV ra did, so I set it to BOOTDEV NONE. (What *does* it do? what is the "autoboot device"?) 2. I turned off QUOTAs. 3. I turned off DHV11 support. 4. I turned off INGRES. During the kernel build, there was an overlay overflow in OV6. I found this doing a size unix.o, noting overlay 6 was full. I did a size toy.o, it looked like a good candidate to move to OV5. I did that, rebuilt, and all was fine: $ size /unix /netnix text data bss dec hex 52288 5846 26288 84422 149c6 /unix total text: 111424 overlays: 7744,7488,7872,7296,2752,8064,4992,5696,7232 63296 2448 38514 104258 19742 /netnix (I hadn't built something with overlays since 8086 days.) I edited netstart to add my hostname, etc., /etc/hosts, and so forth, so that it ifconfig's qe0 and lo0 (localhost loopback). This works fine, I can telnet in and out, ftp in and out, etc. ... it sure is nice to to telnet into the 11, opening up mulitple terminal sessions in multiple windows on my notebook PC, as compared to using a single serial console (albeit attached to my networked VAXstation). On this slow machine, lacking job control, it is so nice to open up another session if/when the current command is going to take longer than anticipated. ... |
|
|
Reply by ●October 30, 20022002-10-30
|
> > However, in general instruction sets can't be copyrighted.
Patents > > can apply, but they don't last long enough for it to be an issue for > > the PDP-11. > > I belive the use of the PC as general register was a patented idea. This is an important point. It's my understanding that you cannot protect an instruction set as IP except as a trade secrety (and hence by contract to liscensee's), but you can patent implimentation features key to that instruction set. |
