Re: [Simh] retargetable assembler
Please disregard dead.letter detritus! > > How do you feel about the dwelling value? The inspection came in at > > $133,000 for the replacement cost of your home, do you agree? The policy is > > currently at $205,000. > > How was the inspection estimate calculated: > Was it based on current condition or replacement cost? A message I killed, when I realized I had quoted the answer to the question I was asking! ___ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
Re: [Simh] retargetable assembler
> How do you feel about the dwelling value? The inspection came in at $133,000 > for the replacement cost of your home, do you agree? The policy is currently > at $205,000. How was the inspection estimate calculated: Was it based on current condition or replacement cost? > Reading the Wikipedia page about Whirlwind, it mentions that the pdp1 is a > direct descendent, so would a pdp1 assembler work? Or a tx0 Assembler? I > don't know if these already exist or not. There's certainly close interrelation the the development of Whirlwind, TX-0 and the PDP-1. http://libraries.mit.edu/archives/research/collections/collections-mc/mc665.html says: The U.S. Air Force provided substantial financial support for Whirlwind applications and it was a key component in the design of the Air Force's SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) air defense system in the 1950s. Research projects at Lincoln Laboratory resulted in the further development of two additional computers, the MTC (memory test computer) and TX-0 (transistor computer), by Group 63 of Lincoln Lab, Division 6. http://americanhistory.si.edu/comphist/olsen.html Ken Olsen: We understood from experience that you really had to test every possible combination. Because [no matter] how thoroughly you designed things there's always something that might go wrong or some combination of things that might be wrong. And people were not about to trust the core memory unless it was truly tested in an environment that was tested. So we set about to build what we called a memory test computer. It was supposed to be an honest to goodness computer that would really run and test the memory, but not a computer that designed to be useful. I was given the job of building the computer just as soon as my thesis was done. I think I was still a graduate student and it cost a million dollars. I can remember being impressed of how much a million dollars was. How much work it took to spend a million dollars. Now I'm impressed at how little effort it takes to spend a million dollars. So we built a 16-bit machine. [STANDING AT THE TX-0 COMPUTER] When I was given the opportunity to work on a transistor computer, the idea was kind of new, it was exciting and we had knowledge of the very fast transistor which we had built a very fast computer. The rules were, I could hire nobody and have no space. I studied the rules carefully and found all the loopholes. I somehow was able, one way or another, to get three or four people to work with me. We discovered that hallway was not space. So we moved my office into the hall and put walls around it. We then traded that space for a space in the basement which was less desirable but bigger. With that we were able to do our work. TX-0 was to TX-2 as MTC was to the Whirlwind. The PDP-1 was designed by Ben Gurley, who had worked on TX-0 and TX-2. http://www.computerhistory.org/pdp-1/ben-gurley/ Two years after DEC was formed in 1957, Ben Gurley was brought on board to work on the PDP-1 with fellow engineers--and former Lincoln Laboratory employees--Ken Olsen, Dick Best, Bob Savell, Harlan Anderson, and Stan Olsen. Their computer design work at MIT greatly influenced the development of the PDP-1, which has been described as a "direct descendant" of the TX-0 and TX-2 computers created at MIT. You can find a PDP-1 cross-assembler at https://github.com/simh/simtools/tree/master/crossassemblers/macro1/ I wacked at it to be PDP-1 MACRO compatible enough to assemble MACRO sources. It has PDP-1 opcode values built in (unlike the actual implementations back in the day, where the opcodes were defined by a source (paper) tape. The same is the case with the "as" assembled on PDP-7 UNIX, which I also coaxed back to life), nonetheless it should suffice! ISTR: the MACRO (and MIDAS?) assemblers got their start on TX-0. one of them was translated to the PDP-1 in a weekend hack attack (on a bet?) ___ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
Re: [Simh] retargetable assembler
On 9/6/17 11:26 AM, khandy21yo wrote: > Is there any source for actual Whirlwind Code? CHM has paper and magnetic tapes archived, but not read. Code appears in various docments on bitsavers ___ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
Re: [Simh] retargetable assembler
Wikipedia has some rather odd ideas sometimes. Is there any source for actual Whirlwind Code? It might give more information about how people actually used it. Sent from my Galaxy Tab® A Original message From: Paul Koning <paulkon...@comcast.net> Date: 9/6/17 8:19 AM (GMT-07:00) To: khandy21yo <khandy2...@gmail.com> Cc: Timothe Litt <l...@ieee.org>, simh@trailing-edge.com Subject: Re: [Simh] retargetable assembler > On Sep 6, 2017, at 9:21 AM, khandy21yo <khandy2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Reading the Wikipedia page about Whirlwind, it mentions that the pdp1 is a > direct descendent, so would a pdp1 assembler work? Or a tx0 Assembler? I > don't know if these already exist or not. I wonder why it would say that. PDP1 and TX0 are both 18-bit machines. Their instruction sets are quite different from each other, and very different also from Whirlwind judging by the documents on Bitsavers. They are all single address accumulator machines, but then again so are most other computers of that era. paul ___ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
Re: [Simh] retargetable assembler
On 06-Sep-17 08:19, Paul Koning wrote: >> On Sep 5, 2017, at 9:18 PM, Timothe Littwrote: >> >> It's a heavy lift & overkill, but GCC (gas) can be made to cross-compile >> for/from any reasonable machine. That gives you a complete toolset - but >> it's a lot of work. > The assembler (gas) is separate from the compiler (gcc and friends). It's a > prerequisite for a complete cross-package but you can certainly do a gas for > some new architecture without bothering with the compiler. gdb gives you a disassembler. > The question is assembler syntax. If the machine you're after has a standard > syntax, then gas is unlikely to help since it uses Unix "as" style syntax. > For example, while you can assemble PDP11 programs with gas, they don't look > like familiar Macro-11 programs and if you feed it Macro-11 sources it will > complain bitterly. Yes, but presumably this is a bootstrapping exercise - hopefully the native assembler can be found and used once the simulator runs. As noted, this isn't the approach I'd take, but tastes (and energy levels) vary. >> If it were my project, I'd define some macros in MACRO-11 to create a >> cross-assembler, as IIRC Whirlwind has 16 bit wordsize. MACRO-11 has a >> reasonable set of operators and macro pseudo-ops. Define the Whirlwind >> instructions as macros, and you're all set. People have done this for early >> micros - it's not quite native and can be a bit awkward - but it works and >> can be put together with minimal effort. >> >> You can output absolute binary from the assembler - or link/task build if >> you want psects or libraries. But with the small memory size, MACRO will do. >> >> If you want 32-bit words, there's always MACRO-32 - pretty much the same >> macro capabilities. >> >> For a host, you can use a simh PDP-11 or VAX - whatever you're comfortable >> with. > Sure, those are good options. Others mentioned Python to write one from > scratch. That is very easy. I've written an Electrologica assembler in > Python, which didn't take long, and a more limited assembler is probably just > a week or two worth of work. > > One complication for using Macro-11 is that Whirlwind is one-s complement, so > negative numbers will be wrong. That can be handled with a macro to convert 2's complement to 1's, including any end-around carry. > paul > > smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
Re: [Simh] retargetable assembler
On 06-Sep-17 09:21, khandy21yo wrote: > Reading the Wikipedia page about Whirlwind, it mentions that the pdp1 > is a direct descendent, so would a pdp1 assembler work? Or a tx0 > Assembler? I don't know if these already exist or not. > > Is the pdp1 a transistorized Whirlwind as the Wikipedia article > suggests? We already have an emulator for that. > > Anyway, I remember reading about the tx0, and that they were always > modifying the instruction set in hardware. For this early machine, was > there even an official assembler Format? And which character sets did > it use, probably not ascii. > ASCII didn't exist in the whirlwind timeframe; not until mid 1960s. IIRC, TX0 used a 5 level code from the Frieden flexowriter. Probably similar to Baudot. Don't know about whirlwind. yes, the architecture of early machines was fluid... smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
Re: [Simh] retargetable assembler
Reading the Wikipedia page about Whirlwind, it mentions that the pdp1 is a direct descendent, so would a pdp1 assembler work? Or a tx0 Assembler? I don't know if these already exist or not. Is the pdp1 a transistorized Whirlwind as the Wikipedia article suggests? We already have an emulator for that. Anyway, I remember reading about the tx0, and that they were always modifying the instruction set in hardware. For this early machine, was there even an official assembler Format? And which character sets did it use, probably not ascii. Sent from my Galaxy Tab® A Original message From: Paul Koning <paulkon...@comcast.net> Date: 9/6/17 6:19 AM (GMT-07:00) To: Timothe Litt <l...@ieee.org> Cc: simh@trailing-edge.com Subject: Re: [Simh] retargetable assembler > On Sep 5, 2017, at 9:18 PM, Timothe Litt <l...@ieee.org> wrote: > > It's a heavy lift & overkill, but GCC (gas) can be made to cross-compile > for/from any reasonable machine. That gives you a complete toolset - but > it's a lot of work. The assembler (gas) is separate from the compiler (gcc and friends). It's a prerequisite for a complete cross-package but you can certainly do a gas for some new architecture without bothering with the compiler. The question is assembler syntax. If the machine you're after has a standard syntax, then gas is unlikely to help since it uses Unix "as" style syntax. For example, while you can assemble PDP11 programs with gas, they don't look like familiar Macro-11 programs and if you feed it Macro-11 sources it will complain bitterly. > If it were my project, I'd define some macros in MACRO-11 to create a > cross-assembler, as IIRC Whirlwind has 16 bit wordsize. MACRO-11 has a > reasonable set of operators and macro pseudo-ops. Define the Whirlwind > instructions as macros, and you're all set. People have done this for early > micros - it's not quite native and can be a bit awkward - but it works and > can be put together with minimal effort. > > You can output absolute binary from the assembler - or link/task build if you > want psects or libraries. But with the small memory size, MACRO will do. > > If you want 32-bit words, there's always MACRO-32 - pretty much the same > macro capabilities. > > For a host, you can use a simh PDP-11 or VAX - whatever you're comfortable > with. Sure, those are good options. Others mentioned Python to write one from scratch. That is very easy. I've written an Electrologica assembler in Python, which didn't take long, and a more limited assembler is probably just a week or two worth of work. One complication for using Macro-11 is that Whirlwind is one-s complement, so negative numbers will be wrong. paul ___ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh___ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
Re: [Simh] retargetable assembler
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 9:18 PM, Timothe Littwrote: > > It's a heavy lift & overkill, but GCC (gas) can be made to cross-compile > for/from any reasonable machine. That gives you a complete toolset - but > it's a lot of work. The assembler (gas) is separate from the compiler (gcc and friends). It's a prerequisite for a complete cross-package but you can certainly do a gas for some new architecture without bothering with the compiler. The question is assembler syntax. If the machine you're after has a standard syntax, then gas is unlikely to help since it uses Unix "as" style syntax. For example, while you can assemble PDP11 programs with gas, they don't look like familiar Macro-11 programs and if you feed it Macro-11 sources it will complain bitterly. > If it were my project, I'd define some macros in MACRO-11 to create a > cross-assembler, as IIRC Whirlwind has 16 bit wordsize. MACRO-11 has a > reasonable set of operators and macro pseudo-ops. Define the Whirlwind > instructions as macros, and you're all set. People have done this for early > micros - it's not quite native and can be a bit awkward - but it works and > can be put together with minimal effort. > > You can output absolute binary from the assembler - or link/task build if you > want psects or libraries. But with the small memory size, MACRO will do. > > If you want 32-bit words, there's always MACRO-32 - pretty much the same > macro capabilities. > > For a host, you can use a simh PDP-11 or VAX - whatever you're comfortable > with. Sure, those are good options. Others mentioned Python to write one from scratch. That is very easy. I've written an Electrologica assembler in Python, which didn't take long, and a more limited assembler is probably just a week or two worth of work. One complication for using Macro-11 is that Whirlwind is one-s complement, so negative numbers will be wrong. paul ___ Simh mailing list Simh@trailing-edge.com http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh