pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-08 Thread Brent Hilpert
OK, what was the standard (if there was one) number-base syntax for PDP-11 assembler? Despite all the PDP-11 assembly info on web sites, this seems to be a buried bit of info. One assembler doc uses a prefix of "&o", another specifies octal as default and prefix of zero for decimal (opposite of

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-08 Thread Don North
On 1/8/2017 9:10 PM, Brent Hilpert wrote: OK, what was the standard (if there was one) number-base syntax for PDP-11 assembler? Despite all the PDP-11 assembly info on web sites, this seems to be a buried bit of info. One assembler doc uses a prefix of "&o", another specifies octal as default

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-09 Thread Paul Koning
> On Jan 9, 2017, at 12:38 AM, Don North wrote: > > On 1/8/2017 9:10 PM, Brent Hilpert wrote: >> OK, what was the standard (if there was one) number-base syntax for PDP-11 >> assembler? >> >> Despite all the PDP-11 assembly info on web sites, this seems to be a buried >> bit of info. >> One a

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-09 Thread Pete Lancashire
wow ... the memories ... someday I've got to get a PDP-11 again :-). had most of the opcodes memorized, for a story Had a coworker who played the piano, he could enter/patch code from the 11/35's panel from memory so fast all you saw was a blur. When we replacing the 11/35's with 11/34A he

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-09 Thread Brent Hilpert
On 2017-Jan-09, at 6:27 AM, Pete Lancashire wrote: > wow ... the memories ... someday I've got to get a PDP-11 again :-). > > had most of the opcodes memorized, for a story > > Had a coworker who played the piano, he could enter/patch code from > the 11/35's panel from memory so fast all you

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-10 Thread Noel Chiappa
> From: Brent Hilpert One assembler doc uses a prefix of "&o" > So the answer is, by modern expectations the old standard would be > ambiguous or misleading. Well, the ideas of 'assembler' and 'standard' don't really go together in my mind... :-) But seriously, I don't know

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-10 Thread Lars Brinkhoff
Noel Chiappa wrote: > Well, technically, DEC had PAL-11 and MACRO-11, but PAL-11 was > basically a subset of MACRO-11, and used the same number syntax.) I've been wondering about this! What's the difference between PAL-11 and MACRO-11? There's PAL III, PALX, PAL-D, PAL-8, PAL-10, and MACRO-8 for

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-10 Thread Noel Chiappa
> From: Lars Brinkhoff > What's the difference between PAL-11 and MACRO-11? Without going through the manuals at length, basically MACRO-11 supports macros, and PAL-11 doesn't. The syntax is otherwise very similar. > PALX is also the name for a cross assembler targeting PDP-11. I kn

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-10 Thread Lars Brinkhoff
Noel Chiappa wrote: > > What's the difference between PAL-11 and MACRO-11? > Without going through the manuals at length, basically MACRO-11 supports > macros, and PAL-11 doesn't. The syntax is otherwise very similar. So I wonder if this holds true in general, PAL are simpler assemblers withou

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-10 Thread Phil Budne
I've always assumed the P in PAL was for paper tape. The Wikipedia artile for PDP-8 says that PAL-8 assembled from paper tape into memory, so the A and L could have been for Assembler and Loader. ISTR PAL-11A was also an "absolute" assembler (did not output REL files), but there was also a PAL-11

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-10 Thread Paul Koning
> On Jan 10, 2017, at 11:37 AM, Phil Budne wrote: > > I've always assumed the P in PAL was for paper tape. > > The Wikipedia artile for PDP-8 says that PAL-8 assembled from paper > tape into memory, so the A and L could have been for Assembler and Loader. Could be. I took it to be PDP11 Assem

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-10 Thread Paul Koning
> On Jan 10, 2017, at 8:03 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: > >> From: Brent Hilpert > > One assembler doc uses a prefix of "&o" > >> So the answer is, by modern expectations the old standard would be >> ambiguous or misleading. > > Well, the ideas of 'assembler' and 'standard' don't really go tog

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-10 Thread Noel Chiappa
> From: Phil Budne > I've always assumed the P in PAL was for paper tape. > The Wikipedia artile for PDP-8 says that PAL-8 assembled from paper > tape into memory, so the A and L could have been for Assembler and > Loader. I have a number of different versions of the "PDP-11 P

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-10 Thread Noel Chiappa
> From: Paul Koning > Is that the Unix assembler convention? Yup. From "Unix Assembler Reference Manual" (by DMR; no date, but the one I'm looking at came with V6): "An octal constant consists of a sequence of digits ... A decimal constant consists of a sequence of digits terminated by a

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-10 Thread Lars Brinkhoff
Noel Chiappa wrote: > > From: Phil Budne > > I've always assumed the P in PAL was for paper tape. > > The Wikipedia artile for PDP-8 says that PAL-8 assembled from paper > > tape into memory, so the A and L could have been for Assembler and > > Loader. > > I have a number of di

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-11 Thread Brent Hilpert
On 2017-Jan-10, at 5:03 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: Brent Hilpert > One assembler doc uses a prefix of "&o" >> >> So the answer is, by modern expectations the old standard would be >> ambiguous or misleading. > > Well, the ideas of 'assembler' and 'standard' don't really go together in m

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-11 Thread Brent Hilpert
On 2017-Jan-10, at 5:03 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: Brent Hilpert > One assembler doc uses a prefix of "&o" >> >> So the answer is, by modern expectations the old standard would be >> ambiguous or misleading. > > Well, the ideas of 'assembler' and 'standard' don't really go together in m

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-11 Thread Brent Hilpert
On 2017-Jan-10, at 5:03 AM, Noel Chiappa wrote: >> From: Brent Hilpert > One assembler doc uses a prefix of "&o" >> >> So the answer is, by modern expectations the old standard would be >> ambiguous or misleading. > > Well, the ideas of 'assembler' and 'standard' don't really go together in m

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-11 Thread Brent Hilpert
> I've never heard of that '&o' bizzaro-stuff - where did you find that? This one: http://mdfs.net/Software/PDP11/Assembler/AsmPDP.txt Reading more closely, the encoding has some relation back to BBC BASIC. I was beginning to wonder if it was some html character-encoding screwup.

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-11 Thread Brent Hilpert
> I've never heard of that '&o' bizzaro-stuff - where did you find that? This one: http://mdfs.net/Software/PDP11/Assembler/AsmPDP.txt Reading more closely, the encoding has some relation back to BBC BASIC. I was beginning to wonder if it was some html character-encoding screwup.

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-11 Thread Brent Hilpert
> I've never heard of that '&o' bizzaro-stuff - where did you find that? This one: http://mdfs.net/Software/PDP11/Assembler/AsmPDP.txt Reading more closely, the encoding has some relation back to BBC BASIC. I was beginning to wonder if it was some html character-encoding screwup.

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-11 Thread Pete Turnbull
On 11/01/2017 08:02, Brent Hilpert wrote: I've never heard of that '&o' bizzaro-stuff - where did you find that? This one: http://mdfs.net/Software/PDP11/Assembler/AsmPDP.txt Reading more closely, the encoding has some relation back to BBC BASIC. Yes, that syntax (&, &o, %) has nothi

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-11 Thread Noel Chiappa
> From: Brent Hilpert > This one: > ... > Reading more closely, the encoding has some relation back to BBC BASIC. Given this (from the documentation): Assembler directives #include Includes the specified file. #ifndef Continue assembling

Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-11 Thread Pete Turnbull
On 11/01/2017 14:07, Noel Chiappa wrote: Although I note the documentation says "any valid value recognised by BBC BASIC" - does BBC basic use the leading '%' notation for constants? Sort of. BBC BASIC uses the prefix '&' to specify hexadecimal numbers, so &FFFE is the exact equivalent of 0x

re duplicates Re: pdp-11 assembly standards

2017-01-11 Thread Brent Hilpert
On 2017-Jan-11, at 12:04 AM, Brent Hilpert wrote: >> I've never heard of that '&o' bizzaro-stuff - where did you find that? > > This one: > http://mdfs.net/Software/PDP11/Assembler/AsmPDP.txt > > Reading more closely, the encoding has some relation back to BBC BASIC. > I was beginning to wo