[ql-developers] 2GHz 68060
Thierry wrote: BTW, who could we bribe, at Motorola, so that they relaunch the 68060 production with modern technology ?... I'm still dreaming about a 2GHz 68060... I bet it would not be ridiculous at all when compared to Intel/AMD's over-complicated and bloated processors... The man is probably Joe Circello. Have you looked into the CF4e? Not 2 GHz, but at least 0.266 GHz, with FPU. You might run 8 in parallel (not that I'd design the board :) Bye, Peter
Re: [ql-developers] 2GHz 68060
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:03:21 +0100, Peter Graf wrote: > You might run 8 in parallel (not that I'd design the board :) Aww common !... ;-) Thierry.
[ql-developers] HD max size (was: Re: Linux Q40 Update)
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:37:44 +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > !!! WARNING !!! Kernel 2.4.18 (probably anything <2.4.21) > will eat filesystems on disks>137GB. Read in Documentation/ide.txt of the Linux kernel sources: == How To Use *Big* ATA/IDE drives with Linux -- The ATA Interface spec for IDE disk drives allows a total of 28 bits (8 bits for sector, 16 bits for cylinder, and 4 bits for head) for addressing individual disk sectors of 512 bytes each (in "Linear Block Address" (LBA) mode, there is still only a total of 28 bits available in the hardware). This "limits" the capacity of an IDE drive to no more than 128GB (Giga-bytes). All current day IDE drives are somewhat smaller than this upper limit, and within a few years, ATAPI disk drives will raise the limit considerably. == I suppose your 'Gb' was 10^9 bytes one (the one HD manufacturers use in their spec to make your believe that you got a bigger HD) and not the -true- 1024^3 bytes Giga-byte, so I guess you simply hit the 128Gb limit as described in the doc... Thierry.
Fw: Re: [ql-developers] 2GHz 68060
Erf... I meant 'come on', of course... --- Begin forwarded message: Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:56:37 +0100 From: Thierry Godefroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ql-developers] 2GHz 68060 On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:03:21 +0100, Peter Graf wrote: > You might run 8 in parallel (not that I'd design the board :) Aww common !... ;-) Thierry.
Re: [ql-developers] Linux Q40 Update
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 01:19:47AM +0100, Thierry Godefroy wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:37:44 +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > a short roundup of issues I am messing with: > > > > !!! WARNING !!! Kernel 2.4.18 (probably anything <2.4.21) > > will eat filesystems on disks>137GB. > > * chuckles * I didn't even figured out how to get this damned > atari_fdisk to properly enable and setup extended partitions, > so my 20Gb HD is pretty much underused already... strange, that was not the slightest problem for me.. currently there are 2x60GB disks under the hood. At least you dont have to think about the 137 GB problem. > > plenty of updated user packages and libs > > > > gcc issues: > > > > - libgcc_so in gcc3.3 is incompatible with previous versions > >due to a change (a real improvement actually ;) in m68k exception > >handling and version number wasnt bumped accordingly.. this makes > >system upgrades not practical for average user. > > No chance to install the two libraries in parallele ? would work, but each approach has some drawbacks: - different so-numbers, also different than the rest of the world, forgetting to patch a new gcc release would result in problems. I am not really sure if the version numbers could ever meet again. - different libdir, different loadpath. Default ld.so cant do that without help.. supposedly it is possible to hardcode ldpath into the old binaries but I have never tried. Even worse, having 2 versions of libgcc_so would probably mean to keep 2 version of some other c++ libs. So far I simply ignore the few hundred c++ programs that are broken by the new libs in the hope to get them recompiled soon. > > So a gcc v3.2 or 3.3 for the Q60 soon ? :-) perhaps 3.4, the coreutils/sha1 problem turned out to be very likely another 3.3.x bug.. one of those really nasty to debug ones. > > On an obscure sidetrack of development, I have a functional > > but slightly buggy native ocaml compiler for m68k > > (http://www.ocaml.org/).. needed a fast and reliable RAD > > language to update the dated, slow and insecure cgi scripts > > in the Q40 distribution. > > RAD ? rapid application development, buzzword but you get the idea. It beats most other langauages when comparing lines of code length while still beeing slightly more readable than APL or perl. Ocaml is also one of the few high level languages that can beat the speed of compiled c on many tasks. Richard
Re: Fw: Re: [ql-developers] 2GHz 68060
On 17 Dec 2003 at 11:17, Thierry Godefroy wrote: > > > Erf... I meant 'come on', of course... > > --- > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:56:37 +0100 > From: Thierry Godefroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ql-developers] 2GHz 68060 > > > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:03:21 +0100, Peter Graf wrote: > > > You might run 8 in parallel (not that I'd design the board :) > > Aww common !... ;-) > > Thierry. After you wrote Multiprocessor-Minerva, I shall reconsider ;-) Maybe ask Richard to add some sort of multiport-RAM emulation for parallel instances of UQLX to prove that it works... Peter
Re: [ql-developers] HD max size (was: Re: Linux Q40 Update)
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:55:18AM +0100, Thierry Godefroy wrote: > All current day IDE drives are somewhat smaller than this upper limit, and > within a few years, ATAPI disk drives will raise the limit considerably. > == someone should update that text I guess ;) > I suppose your 'Gb' was 10^9 bytes one (the one HD manufacturers use in > their spec to make your believe that you got a bigger HD) and not the > -true- 1024^3 bytes Giga-byte, so I guess you simply hit the 128Gb limit > as described in the doc... pretty sure. Of course the limit is no longer there in any modern OS, it is only the complicated byteswapping that hit Q40 and Atari users again.. Richard
