Hi,
There's lot's of software available for the PDP-11, but
probably not much that has been written recently.
Since I've decided to write my own PDP-11 VHDL model.
I would really like to find some test programs.
If anyone has any pointers to CPU POST or other PDP-11
diagnostic programs, please let me know.
Thanks,
Scott
> --- In f..., "Scott" wrote:
> > ... last night I sat down and wrote the VHDL
> > case statements for a PDP-11/40 instruction decoder.
> > So I am on my way to writing my own model :-)
> > I'll let you know how it goes.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Scott L Baker
--- In f..., "rtstofer" wrote:
>
> I am interested in your project and would like to tag along.
> My first question: is there a complete suite of software
> available for the CPU?
>
> Please keep the group posted!
> Richard
>
POP-11 (PDP-11/40 in an FPGA)
Started by ●August 16, 2007
Reply by ●August 21, 20072007-08-21
Reply by ●August 22, 20072007-08-22
Hi,
My PDP-11 VHDL model just passed this very simple test..
So at least a few instructions seem to be working OK.. :-)
Now on to the fun part... implementing the operand
addressing modes. :-)
Regards,
Scott
-------------- cut here -------------
;-------------------------------
; pdp11 .. A very simple test .. branches and condition codes
;-------------------------------
nop
nop
sen
bpl err_1$
sez
bne err_1$
sev
bvc err_1$
sec
bcc err_1$
cln
bmi err_1$
clz
beq err_1$
clv
bvs err_1$
clc
bcs err_1$
scc
ccc
br all_OK$
scc
nop
all_OK$: halt
nop
nop
err_1$: br err_1$
nop
nop
-------------- cut here -------------
--- In f..., "Scott" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> There's lot's of software available for the PDP-11, but
> probably not much that has been written recently.
>
> Since I've decided to write my own PDP-11 VHDL model.
> I would really like to find some test programs.
>
> If anyone has any pointers to CPU POST or other PDP-11
> diagnostic programs, please let me know.
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
> > --- In f..., "Scott" wrote:
>
> > > ... last night I sat down and wrote the VHDL
> > > case statements for a PDP-11/40 instruction decoder.
> > > So I am on my way to writing my own model :-)
> > > I'll let you know how it goes.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Scott L Baker
>
> --- In f..., "rtstofer" wrote:
> >
> > I am interested in your project and would like to tag along.
> > My first question: is there a complete suite of software
> > available for the CPU?
> >
> > Please keep the group posted!
> > Richard
>
My PDP-11 VHDL model just passed this very simple test..
So at least a few instructions seem to be working OK.. :-)
Now on to the fun part... implementing the operand
addressing modes. :-)
Regards,
Scott
-------------- cut here -------------
;-------------------------------
; pdp11 .. A very simple test .. branches and condition codes
;-------------------------------
nop
nop
sen
bpl err_1$
sez
bne err_1$
sev
bvc err_1$
sec
bcc err_1$
cln
bmi err_1$
clz
beq err_1$
clv
bvs err_1$
clc
bcs err_1$
scc
ccc
br all_OK$
scc
nop
all_OK$: halt
nop
nop
err_1$: br err_1$
nop
nop
-------------- cut here -------------
--- In f..., "Scott" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> There's lot's of software available for the PDP-11, but
> probably not much that has been written recently.
>
> Since I've decided to write my own PDP-11 VHDL model.
> I would really like to find some test programs.
>
> If anyone has any pointers to CPU POST or other PDP-11
> diagnostic programs, please let me know.
>
> Thanks,
> Scott
> > --- In f..., "Scott" wrote:
>
> > > ... last night I sat down and wrote the VHDL
> > > case statements for a PDP-11/40 instruction decoder.
> > > So I am on my way to writing my own model :-)
> > > I'll let you know how it goes.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Scott L Baker
>
> --- In f..., "rtstofer" wrote:
> >
> > I am interested in your project and would like to tag along.
> > My first question: is there a complete suite of software
> > available for the CPU?
> >
> > Please keep the group posted!
> > Richard
>
Reply by ●August 22, 20072007-08-22
Scott wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> My PDP-11 VHDL model just passed this very simple test..
> So at least a few instructions seem to be working OK.. :-)
> Now on to the fun part... implementing the operand
> addressing modes. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Scott
>
> -------------- cut here -------------
It don't work on glass TTY's
>
> ;----------------------
> ; pdp11 .. A very simple test .. branches and condition codes
> ;----------------------
>
> nop
> nop
>
> sen
> bpl err_1$
>
> sez
> bne err_1$
>
> sev
> bvc err_1$
>
> sec
> bcc err_1$
>
> cln
> bmi err_1$
>
> clz
> beq err_1$
>
> clv
> bvs err_1$
>
> clc
> bcs err_1$
>
> scc
> ccc
>
> br all_OK$
>
> scc
> nop
>
> all_OK$: halt
>
> nop
> nop
>
> err_1$: br err_1$
>
> nop
> nop
> -------------- cut here -------------
Good luck with the design. Now all you need is a few
leds - halt/run/ and you can test the hardware.
The only problem I can see is the PDP-11 instruction
set is still copy written.
Ben alias Woodelf.
>
> Hi,
>
> My PDP-11 VHDL model just passed this very simple test..
> So at least a few instructions seem to be working OK.. :-)
> Now on to the fun part... implementing the operand
> addressing modes. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Scott
>
> -------------- cut here -------------
It don't work on glass TTY's
>
> ;----------------------
> ; pdp11 .. A very simple test .. branches and condition codes
> ;----------------------
>
> nop
> nop
>
> sen
> bpl err_1$
>
> sez
> bne err_1$
>
> sev
> bvc err_1$
>
> sec
> bcc err_1$
>
> cln
> bmi err_1$
>
> clz
> beq err_1$
>
> clv
> bvs err_1$
>
> clc
> bcs err_1$
>
> scc
> ccc
>
> br all_OK$
>
> scc
> nop
>
> all_OK$: halt
>
> nop
> nop
>
> err_1$: br err_1$
>
> nop
> nop
> -------------- cut here -------------
Good luck with the design. Now all you need is a few
leds - halt/run/ and you can test the hardware.
The only problem I can see is the PDP-11 instruction
set is still copy written.
Ben alias Woodelf.
Reply by ●August 22, 20072007-08-22
Hi Woodelf
Love the name :-)
I think I've seen the discussion on copyright of instructions before on
this list,
but I can't remember what the out come was. I should look back on the list.
Does that mean an emulator that uses the PDP-11 instruction set is also
violating copyright ?
What if I modify how the instructions work some how that maintains
compatibility,
or maybe add a segment register or something. Is that violating copyright ?
John.
> Good luck with the design. Now all you need is a few
> leds - halt/run/ and you can test the hardware.
>
> The only problem I can see is the PDP-11 instruction
> set is still copy written.
> Ben alias Woodelf.
>
> __._,
>
>
--
http://www.johnkent.com.au
http://members.optushome.com.au/jekent
Love the name :-)
I think I've seen the discussion on copyright of instructions before on
this list,
but I can't remember what the out come was. I should look back on the list.
Does that mean an emulator that uses the PDP-11 instruction set is also
violating copyright ?
What if I modify how the instructions work some how that maintains
compatibility,
or maybe add a segment register or something. Is that violating copyright ?
John.
> Good luck with the design. Now all you need is a few
> leds - halt/run/ and you can test the hardware.
>
> The only problem I can see is the PDP-11 instruction
> set is still copy written.
> Ben alias Woodelf.
>
> __._,
>
>
--
http://www.johnkent.com.au
http://members.optushome.com.au/jekent
Reply by ●August 22, 20072007-08-22
That should be an FAQ.
The bottom line:
- ISAs not protected at all
- Implementations covered by copyright. So do not use the original
schematics as a basis for your design.
- Implementaion concepts, ideas etc. can be covered by patents.
Original PDP11 patents are expired by now. So it must be possible to do an
patent free implementation.
However, you are probably using more modern implementation styles in your
new design so some of
your design decision might be covered by other patents. On the other hand,
you are unlikely to be sued
by ARM because your PDP11 implementation uses a patented register file idea
from an ARM patent.
Kolja Sulimma, NAL (not a lawyer)
The bottom line:
- ISAs not protected at all
- Implementations covered by copyright. So do not use the original
schematics as a basis for your design.
- Implementaion concepts, ideas etc. can be covered by patents.
Original PDP11 patents are expired by now. So it must be possible to do an
patent free implementation.
However, you are probably using more modern implementation styles in your
new design so some of
your design decision might be covered by other patents. On the other hand,
you are unlikely to be sued
by ARM because your PDP11 implementation uses a patented register file idea
from an ARM patent.
Kolja Sulimma, NAL (not a lawyer)
Reply by ●August 22, 20072007-08-22
On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 19:06 +1000, John Kent wrote:
> Does that mean an emulator that uses the PDP-11 instruction set is
> also violating copyright ?
I don't believe this to be true regarding all the PDP-11
simulators (even commercial ones) out there.
Hellwig
> Does that mean an emulator that uses the PDP-11 instruction set is
> also violating copyright ?
I don't believe this to be true regarding all the PDP-11
simulators (even commercial ones) out there.
Hellwig
Reply by ●August 22, 20072007-08-22
2007/8/22, Hellwig Geisse :
> > Does that mean an emulator that uses the PDP-11 instruction set is
> > also violating copyright ?
> I don't believe this to be true regarding all the PDP-11
> simulators (even commercial ones) out there,
An instruction set architecture is no "work" in the sense of copyright law.
Copyright simply does not apply to it.
The document describing the ISA however is copyrighted. Do not
distribute it with your emulater/core/whatever. Instead write your
own.
A software emulator definitely does not use any implementation
techniques from the original hardware, so neither copyright on the
design nor ISA/CPU/hardware patents apply.
Be aware however that there are zillions of patents on fast emulation
techniques. I doubt that you can write a decent emulator without
violating these. Therefore you should move your development department
to Europe where there are no software patents.
Kolja Sulimma
> > Does that mean an emulator that uses the PDP-11 instruction set is
> > also violating copyright ?
> I don't believe this to be true regarding all the PDP-11
> simulators (even commercial ones) out there,
An instruction set architecture is no "work" in the sense of copyright law.
Copyright simply does not apply to it.
The document describing the ISA however is copyrighted. Do not
distribute it with your emulater/core/whatever. Instead write your
own.
A software emulator definitely does not use any implementation
techniques from the original hardware, so neither copyright on the
design nor ISA/CPU/hardware patents apply.
Be aware however that there are zillions of patents on fast emulation
techniques. I doubt that you can write a decent emulator without
violating these. Therefore you should move your development department
to Europe where there are no software patents.
Kolja Sulimma
Reply by ●August 22, 20072007-08-22
Kolja Sulimma wrote:
> Therefore you should move your development department
> to Europe where there are no software patents.
Not so. In British patent law, for example, you can file a "software"
patent as long as you can demonstrate that it has a technical effect,
isn't simply automation, isn't just an algorithm implementation, and so
on. There is no fundamental distinction as to *how* your idea is
implemented; if you've got a patentable idea that you happen to
implement in software, then that's fine. Do a search - you should find a
lot of British case law on this subject, as well as real patents.
A UK software patent is a lot more difficult to file than a US software
patent, but it's still a software patent. This is acceptable to the
European patent office, and so I assume (in fact, I'm pretty sure) that
other European countries have similar national regulations.
The recent opposition to the European patent directive was completely
misguided. It wouldn't have *allowed* software patents; it would simply
have harmonised existing national laws, which *already* allow software
patents. It was a great example of how to fool a lot of people by
shouting loudly enough, and not bothering to check your facts.
Anyway, the premise that you can avoid US patents by developing in
Europe is misguided. It's true that a US patent only gives legal
protection in the US, but very few non-US companies would be happy to
exclude the US as a market. If you develop in Europe, you need to watch
out for US patents, or you potentially lose half your market. The fact
that US patent X is a half-arsed and pointless waste of space is just
irrelevant; the US courts can stop you selling in the US, and can charge
you lots of money for the privilege. There's also the outside
possibility that the US could attempt to pursue you via international
trade agreements even if you don't sell in the US.
No, I'm not a lawyer either, but I've spent a lot of money on patent
lawyers, and spent a lot of time drafting patents, and reading case law.
> Therefore you should move your development department
> to Europe where there are no software patents.
Not so. In British patent law, for example, you can file a "software"
patent as long as you can demonstrate that it has a technical effect,
isn't simply automation, isn't just an algorithm implementation, and so
on. There is no fundamental distinction as to *how* your idea is
implemented; if you've got a patentable idea that you happen to
implement in software, then that's fine. Do a search - you should find a
lot of British case law on this subject, as well as real patents.
A UK software patent is a lot more difficult to file than a US software
patent, but it's still a software patent. This is acceptable to the
European patent office, and so I assume (in fact, I'm pretty sure) that
other European countries have similar national regulations.
The recent opposition to the European patent directive was completely
misguided. It wouldn't have *allowed* software patents; it would simply
have harmonised existing national laws, which *already* allow software
patents. It was a great example of how to fool a lot of people by
shouting loudly enough, and not bothering to check your facts.
Anyway, the premise that you can avoid US patents by developing in
Europe is misguided. It's true that a US patent only gives legal
protection in the US, but very few non-US companies would be happy to
exclude the US as a market. If you develop in Europe, you need to watch
out for US patents, or you potentially lose half your market. The fact
that US patent X is a half-arsed and pointless waste of space is just
irrelevant; the US courts can stop you selling in the US, and can charge
you lots of money for the privilege. There's also the outside
possibility that the US could attempt to pursue you via international
trade agreements even if you don't sell in the US.
No, I'm not a lawyer either, but I've spent a lot of money on patent
lawyers, and spent a lot of time drafting patents, and reading case law.
Reply by ●August 22, 20072007-08-22
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:35:19 -0600, you wrote:
>
>The only problem I can see is the PDP-11 instruction
>set is still copy written.
>
How can that be after so many years, now? Wasn't the pdp-11/20 first
shipped out in early 1970?? That's 37 years and more.
Jon
>
>The only problem I can see is the PDP-11 instruction
>set is still copy written.
>
How can that be after so many years, now? Wasn't the pdp-11/20 first
shipped out in early 1970?? That's 37 years and more.
Jon
Reply by ●August 22, 20072007-08-22
Paul Davis wrote:
> No, I'm not a lawyer either, but I've spent a lot of money on patent
> lawyers, and spent a lot of time drafting patents, and reading case law.
Well the real point is the PDP-11 is still a commercial product
so I am not sure just when the patents expire. How ever since most
FPGA products never make it to the commercial market I doubt if
you will have problems for your own use. If you do want to be different
- clone a Soviet Union clone of of the PDP-11.
> No, I'm not a lawyer either, but I've spent a lot of money on patent
> lawyers, and spent a lot of time drafting patents, and reading case law.
Well the real point is the PDP-11 is still a commercial product
so I am not sure just when the patents expire. How ever since most
FPGA products never make it to the commercial market I doubt if
you will have problems for your own use. If you do want to be different
- clone a Soviet Union clone of of the PDP-11.
