Re: [9fans] Olimex: these guys are keen electronic engineers.

[Richard Miller]

> So far I have been shy to recommend Plan 9 to them

You could recommend the Plan 9 RISC-V assembler, C compiler and linker
as a stand-alone toolset without the need to run Plan 9 - because they
are also available as part of inferno, which they could run hosted on
their favourite OS.

As for disassembling, inferno includes acid ...


--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tef717f57ede82d4f-Mc278b9e2c0645ce9b6deb9e9
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Olimex: these guys are keen electronic engineers.

[Lucio De Re]

On 2/24/21, Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
>> So far I have been shy to recommend Plan 9 to them
>
> You could recommend the Plan 9 RISC-V assembler, C compiler and linker
> as a stand-alone toolset without the need to run Plan 9 - because they
> are also available as part of inferno, which they could run hosted on
> their favourite OS.
>
> As for disassembling, inferno includes acid ...
>
Thank you, that is an excellent idea, I am sure they are totally
unaware of inferno.

Now to find a way to educate them on Plan 9 and Inferno, from the
opposite direction. But I think I can find a way.

Lucio.

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tef717f57ede82d4f-M336ced25c8d446f6b81279e1
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Olimex: these guys are keen electronic engineers.

[Richard Miller]

> You could recommend the Plan 9 RISC-V assembler, C compiler and linker

Looking at their posting again, what they want is a resident monitor
running on the RISC-V SoC itself that can do assembly/disassembly.
So an offline toolchain will not do the job for them.


--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tef717f57ede82d4f-M2f4380d0013460327e370aed
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] Olimex: these guys are keen electronic engineers.

[Lucio De Re]

I have no doubt that they will find what they seek, or cope with
something near enough.

Let me ponder this, see what further suggestions may come from our
not-quite-OSS community.

Lucio.

On 2/24/21, Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
>> You could recommend the Plan 9 RISC-V assembler, C compiler and linker
>
> Looking at their posting again, what they want is a resident monitor
> running on the RISC-V SoC itself that can do assembly/disassembly.
> So an offline toolchain will not do the job for them.
>

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tef717f57ede82d4f-Md75040b9da7c49791c9e6eb6
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] APL

[Steffen Nurpmeso]

Lyndon Nerenberg (VE7TFX/VE6BBM) wrote in
 <0903a00d50966...@orthanc.ca>:
 |Steffen Nurpmeso writes:
 |> It can even be as small as 
 |>
 |>   #?0|kent:unix-hist$ du -sh .
 |>   179M.
 |>
 |> when not including all the new FreeBSD things (for which i at
 |> least track the FreeBSD git repository directly):

Traffic size is a real issue for me.
(As is quality of the rtw88 driver of Linux 5.10.*, as is the fact
that git i think still cannot resume failed clones.  I anyway had
lots and lots of trouble and yes grief due to this, here.)

 |Okay, so what's the magic incantation to clone just that subset
 |of branches?  git-clone(1) is not helpful ...

Backward compatible for "the one real git" is

 $ cd DIR; git init
 $ git remote add origin -t BRANCH1 -t BRANCH2 -t 'release/*' URL
 $ git fetch -v

Or git init and then copy the snippet :)
(Mind you, just a few weeks ago on FreeBSD it turned out that
i should re-learn git from scratch.  I turned to it around
2010/11, wrote some scripts and aliases, and unless they break,
for example due to rev-list reverting output in about 2013, i have
a very basic way of doing, lots of update-ref and such, for
example.)

And sorry for the late reply, after weeks of -11° Celsius and
months of winter we had 31° more yesterday, including sunshine,
and i went for cycling.  Then someone reported a brain-damage of
mine in software i maintain, and i had to make a release, and then
it was about 3 o'clock in the morning.

--steffen
|Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter   he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T476a1d7b83269775-Mded9eca8705205b15d2110ca
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] 2c/2l make sense, but why 1c/1l?

[Anthony Sorace]

The compiler suite has had a few compilers in it which were used for things 
other than kernel ports. I can’t say about the 68000 specifically, but that 
would be my guess. The i960 and DSP3210 compilers are other examples. 

> On Feb 23, 2021, at 21:18, Steve Simon  wrote:
> 
> I don't believe a 68000 compiler was ever released by the labs but there
> may have been one - some blit terminals had 68000s (and maybe gnots?) so
> its plausable.
> 
> There was a port of the plan9 compilers to the VAX but I think its
> sourcecode was lost (jmk found an executable some years).
> 
> -Steve

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M918f214afdc5ea36e829ea95
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] 2c/2l make sense, but why 1c/1l?

[Joseph Stewart]

Charles could probably answer this better than me, but weren't the 68k
compilers made to support Inferno?
-joe

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:18 PM  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm wondering about the history of the 68000 compiler/tools.  Support for the 
> 68020 makes sense, it had an MMU, but 68000 did not.  And it had some design 
> flaws that prevented it from working correctly with the external MMU, the 
> 68451.  So why does/did Plan 9 have a 68000 compiler?  Did Plan 9 ever run on 
> an MMU-less 68000?
>
> thx.
> 9fans / 9fans / see discussions + participants + delivery options Permalink

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M109e864d31355d12fb3ef3b6
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] 2c/2l make sense, but why 1c/1l?

[Skip Tavakkolian]

I am speculating that it was to support compiling code for a version of the
Blit. 630MTG used 68000 and DMD5620 used AT&T WE3210.
gnot used the 68020.


On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:18 PM  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm wondering about the history of the 68000 compiler/tools.  Support for
> the 68020 makes sense, it had an MMU, but 68000 did not.  And it had some
> design flaws that prevented it from working correctly with the external
> MMU, the 68451.  So why does/did Plan 9 have a 68000 compiler?  Did Plan 9
> ever run on an MMU-less 68000?
>
> thx.
> *9fans * / 9fans / see discussions
>  + participants
>  + delivery options
>  Permalink
> 
>

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-Ma25c671e619d8a057d82c591
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] 2c/2l make sense, but why 1c/1l?

[Charles Forsyth]

I think they might have been there for some other reason and then was used
for Inferno, which they somewhat had going on a Palm Pilot in some form
(not necessarily as the native kernel).
If I waded through a ton of archive material I could probably find the
latter, to see what it was, but I'm not sure it's really worthwhile now.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 8:16 PM Joseph Stewart 
wrote:

> Charles could probably answer this better than me, but weren't the 68k
> compilers made to support Inferno?
> -joe
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:18 PM  wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm wondering about the history of the 68000 compiler/tools.  Support
> for the 68020 makes sense, it had an MMU, but 68000 did not.  And it had
> some design flaws that prevented it from working correctly with the
> external MMU, the 68451.  So why does/did Plan 9 have a 68000 compiler?
> Did Plan 9 ever run on an MMU-less 68000?
> >
> > thx.
> > 9fans / 9fans / see discussions + participants + delivery options
> Permalink

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M0d6f8b10f10462355ff6de16
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] 2c/2l make sense, but why 1c/1l?

[Charles Forsyth]

To be fair, I probably should convert my machine with lots of disks with
lots of historical partitions into a single tree with the contents just as
subdirectories.
It's not as though anyone's going to use them as images ever again. They
only ended up that way because the originals were in strange formats on
increasingly dodgy devices, and it was easier just to copy the partitions
across to partitions of newer bigger drives.

As an aside, it still amuses me that VN's worm jukebox would now fit on an
SD card that I could easily lose.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 11:26 PM Charles Forsyth 
wrote:

> I think they might have been there for some other reason and then was used
> for Inferno, which they somewhat had going on a Palm Pilot in some form
> (not necessarily as the native kernel).
> If I waded through a ton of archive material I could probably find the
> latter, to see what it was, but I'm not sure it's really worthwhile now.
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 8:16 PM Joseph Stewart 
> wrote:
>
>> Charles could probably answer this better than me, but weren't the 68k
>> compilers made to support Inferno?
>> -joe
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:18 PM  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I'm wondering about the history of the 68000 compiler/tools.  Support
>> for the 68020 makes sense, it had an MMU, but 68000 did not.  And it had
>> some design flaws that prevented it from working correctly with the
>> external MMU, the 68451.  So why does/did Plan 9 have a 68000 compiler?
>> Did Plan 9 ever run on an MMU-less 68000?
>> >
>> > thx.
>> > 9fans / 9fans / see discussions + participants + delivery options
>> Permalink

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-Mf5d48b33b42aa6f6e483a745
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] 2c/2l make sense, but why 1c/1l?

[Joseph Stewart]

Cool. I had a talk with Bradley (and maybe you Charles) at some past
IW9P about mangling the 68k compilers to support Coldfire but I never
went forward with it. I had inherited supporting a device that was
barely running uCLinux that I REALLY wanted to run Inferno on...

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 3:27 PM Charles Forsyth
 wrote:
>
> I think they might have been there for some other reason and then was used 
> for Inferno, which they somewhat had going on a Palm Pilot in some form (not 
> necessarily as the native kernel).
> If I waded through a ton of archive material I could probably find the 
> latter, to see what it was, but I'm not sure it's really worthwhile now.
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 8:16 PM Joseph Stewart  
> wrote:
>>
>> Charles could probably answer this better than me, but weren't the 68k
>> compilers made to support Inferno?
>> -joe
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:18 PM  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I'm wondering about the history of the 68000 compiler/tools.  Support for 
>> > the 68020 makes sense, it had an MMU, but 68000 did not.  And it had some 
>> > design flaws that prevented it from working correctly with the external 
>> > MMU, the 68451.  So why does/did Plan 9 have a 68000 compiler?  Did Plan 9 
>> > ever run on an MMU-less 68000?
>> >
>> > thx.
>> > 9fans / 9fans / see discussions + participants + delivery options Permalink
>
> 9fans / 9fans / see discussions + participants + delivery options Permalink

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M5d08695f6eacd2fc934cd50c
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription