On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 09:26:12AM -0500, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote: > >>> The cache and mmu are probably harder than the cpu :-) > >>> > >> I'm not sure the PDP-10 even _had_ cache; I'd have to do some digging > >> on that score. And I have no idea what it had for an MMU. The only > >> non-power-of-two-word-size machine I've ever actually used, as far as > >> I can recall, was a PDP-8. I'm interested in NetBSD/pdp10 less for > >> personal nostalgia value than for the code cleanup it would enforce. > > One "minor" problem is to get gcc to cope with that. There's a > very old gcc port (2.95 era), I'm not sure how complete that is. > At that time gcc had machinery in it for dealing with machines > whose byte is not 8 bits, and/or that are not byte addressable. > The former is gone now, and the latter may also be. (Maybe not; > there might still be DSP-type gcc targets that use it.) It doesn't > seem horribly difficult to resurrect it, though.
As ragge has posted before, he originally took up pcc to address this problem :-) (I think it would probably be more effective, if not as retro-attractive, to define a new 36-bit architecture... this would make a bunch of routine stuff easier and allow concentrating on the 36-bit issues.) -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org