I've used Linux DECnet successfully with local Ethernet connections, but
now I'm trying to set up a Multinet link and dnroute segfaults every time I
start the Multinet link. Of course, Multinet may have nothing to do with it
- all the hosts in on my local network are in the same area and so when
Multinet starts it's also the first time dnroute ever sees another level 2
routing node.
The host is Debian/Lenny -
bob at ziti:~$ uname -a
Linux ziti 2.6.29.3-ziti.4 #1 Sun Nov 7 20:38:06 PST 2010 i586
GNU/Linux
The dnprogs package is v2.44
bob at ziti:~$ /usr/sbin/dnroute -V
dnroute from dnprogs version 2.44
The /etc/default/decnet file says
bob at ziti:~$ cat /etc/default/decnet
# DECnet configuration for ZITI - RLA [8-Nov-2010]
DNET_INTERFACES="eth0"
DNET_DAEMONS="dnetd dnroute"
dnroute_FLAGS="-v -2"
ROUTING=2
PRIORITY=16
(Note that Multinet is not started in here - for the time being, I'm
starting it manually...)
ziti:/home/bob# ps aux | grep -i dnroute
root 2993 0.0 0.2 1672 548 ? Ss 10:42 0:00
/usr/sbin/dnroute -v -2
ziti:/home/bob# dnetinfo
Addr Dev
2.1 LEGATO eth0
2.16 ziti! lo
ziti:/home/bob# multinet 2.16 192.108.200.211 &
using tun device tap0
Remote address = 59.58 (60474)
ziti:/home/bob# dmesg | grep -i dnroute
[ 383.364356] dnroute[2997]: segfault at 0 ip 0804ac18 sp bfaa3ca0
error 4 in dnroute[8048000+6000]
Any ideas what I'm doing wrong? Hopefully it's something easy :-)
Thanks,
Bob Armstrong
Hello!
November question time. I have here a virtual system, running Windows
Server 2003, naturally its biggest problem is that of its also running
on top of an OS from the same firm as the virtual system frame, but
that's besides the point. (We can trade those insults off list later.)
Now the question, "Has anyone managed to get the latest release of E11
running that way with, any of the operating systems who support
Ethernet?", and then following that, "What suggestions are available
for making it available via a dynamically assigned name and IP address
to the network?".
My ISP seems to want to deliver an IP address to me via PPPoE for
normal commercial DSL, I once asked about a static IP address, but the
service hid behind some outlandish reason at the time that it wasn't
possible. I suspect its because the ISP, then Covad behind AT&T, never
considered such a method of delivery for its commercial, read
household, customers, and hence went ahead with what it believed to be
an easy method. Then in March I migrated from that method of having a
ISP to work with to just Covad. Same other e-mail addresses naturally.
To supply the occasional access method for the systems, for when I was
away from here, and needed to do so, I went ahead and used the
services of DDNS to make a hostname available. I chose the vendor
http://www.dyndns.com/ simply because it would be an easy
configuration step, then, or so I thought.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8 at gmail.com
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."
Paul Koning
On Oct 24, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Steve Davidson wrote:
Paul Koning
=20
Does anyone here use gcc for the pdp11?
=20
I've been doing some work on it to clean it up. For one thing, it =
now =3D
builds, which certainly is a useful start... :-)
=20
I've been playing with the idea of writing an 82586 driver (UGH!) for =
=3D
the Pro for RSTS, and seeing how disgustingly sick that chip is, =
doing =3D
it from scratch, or even seriously transforming existing assembly =3D
language drivers, is an unpleasant notion. On the other hand, doing =
it =3D
in C (more precisely, borrowing from, say, the NetBSD driver, changed =
as =3D
needed) seems more palatable.
=20
I *think* gcc is close to being able to handle that job. So I'll =3D
probably be using it for that purpose. Am I the only user of that =3D
compiler or are there others?
=20
paul
=20
=20
=20
Paul,
=20
Will "gcc" build for the VAX (or Alpha) so it can be used as a cross =
compiler
for the 11's on those platforms?
I'm pretty sure the answer is yes to both, but I don't know from =
personal experience.
paul
Paul,
STARS:: has the RSX AME installed. It would be very easy to test this.
-Steve
Paul Koning
On Oct 24, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Steve Davidson wrote:
Paul Koning
=20
Does anyone here use gcc for the pdp11?
=20
I've been doing some work on it to clean it up. For one thing, it =
now =3D
builds, which certainly is a useful start... :-)
=20
I've been playing with the idea of writing an 82586 driver (UGH!) for =
=3D
the Pro for RSTS, and seeing how disgustingly sick that chip is, =
doing =3D
it from scratch, or even seriously transforming existing assembly =3D
language drivers, is an unpleasant notion. On the other hand, doing =
it =3D
in C (more precisely, borrowing from, say, the NetBSD driver, changed =
as =3D
needed) seems more palatable.
=20
I *think* gcc is close to being able to handle that job. So I'll =3D
probably be using it for that purpose. Am I the only user of that =3D
compiler or are there others?
=20
paul
=20
=20
=20
Paul,
=20
Will "gcc" build for the VAX (or Alpha) so it can be used as a cross =
compiler
for the 11's on those platforms?
I'm pretty sure the answer is yes to both, but I don't know from =
personal experience.
paul
If you wish to push it to STARS:: we can sure find out soon enough!
-Steve
On Oct 24, 2010, at 8:07 PM, Steve Davidson wrote:
Paul Koning
Does anyone here use gcc for the pdp11?
I've been doing some work on it to clean it up. For one thing, it now =
builds, which certainly is a useful start... :-)
I've been playing with the idea of writing an 82586 driver (UGH!) for =
the Pro for RSTS, and seeing how disgustingly sick that chip is, doing =
it from scratch, or even seriously transforming existing assembly =
language drivers, is an unpleasant notion. On the other hand, doing it =
in C (more precisely, borrowing from, say, the NetBSD driver, changed as =
needed) seems more palatable.
I *think* gcc is close to being able to handle that job. So I'll =
probably be using it for that purpose. Am I the only user of that =
compiler or are there others?
paul
Paul,
Will "gcc" build for the VAX (or Alpha) so it can be used as a cross compiler
for the 11's on those platforms?
I'm pretty sure the answer is yes to both, but I don't know from personal experience.
paul
Paul Koning
Does anyone here use gcc for the pdp11?
I've been doing some work on it to clean it up. For one thing, it now =
builds, which certainly is a useful start... :-)
I've been playing with the idea of writing an 82586 driver (UGH!) for =
the Pro for RSTS, and seeing how disgustingly sick that chip is, doing =
it from scratch, or even seriously transforming existing assembly =
language drivers, is an unpleasant notion. On the other hand, doing it =
in C (more precisely, borrowing from, say, the NetBSD driver, changed as =
needed) seems more palatable.
I *think* gcc is close to being able to handle that job. So I'll =
probably be using it for that purpose. Am I the only user of that =
compiler or are there others?
paul
Paul,
Will "gcc" build for the VAX (or Alpha) so it can be used as a cross compiler
for the 11's on those platforms?
-Steve
What a pity you didn't mention the Texas MSP430 single-chip system instead ;-)
Quote from: http://www.eg3.com/msp430.htm
"The MSP430 is a micro-controller family from Texas Instruments. Built around a 16-bit CPU, the MSP430 is designed for low cost, low power consumption embedded applications. The architecture is reminiscent of the DEC PDP-11. "
My first views upon this architecture makes me wonder where quite some of the addressing modes went, but this is certainly closer to a real PDP than any AVR!
All my best' to all PDP fan s
/G ran
On 2010-10-23 17:36, Paul Koning wrote:
GCC is way too big to fit on a PDP11. But it makes a fine cross-compiler. In fact, it can cross-compile for lots of smaller things, like AVR single chip microcontrollers (things that cost only a dollar or two).
paul
On Oct 23, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 08:45:53PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
Does anyone here use gcc for the pdp11?
No, but I'm curious. Do you mean to run in on a PDP-11 or would you use
it to cross compile stuff?.
/P
GCC is way too big to fit on a PDP11. But it makes a fine cross-compiler. In fact, it can cross-compile for lots of smaller things, like AVR single chip microcontrollers (things that cost only a dollar or two).
paul
On Oct 23, 2010, at 10:47 AM, Pontus Pihlgren wrote:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 08:45:53PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
Does anyone here use gcc for the pdp11?
No, but I'm curious. Do you mean to run in on a PDP-11 or would you use
it to cross compile stuff?.
/P
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 08:45:53PM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
Does anyone here use gcc for the pdp11?
No, but I'm curious. Do you mean to run in on a PDP-11 or would you use
it to cross compile stuff?.
/P
Does anyone here use gcc for the pdp11?
I've been doing some work on it to clean it up. For one thing, it now builds, which certainly is a useful start... :-)
I've been playing with the idea of writing an 82586 driver (UGH!) for the Pro for RSTS, and seeing how disgustingly sick that chip is, doing it from scratch, or even seriously transforming existing assembly language drivers, is an unpleasant notion. On the other hand, doing it in C (more precisely, borrowing from, say, the NetBSD driver, changed as needed) seems more palatable.
I *think* gcc is close to being able to handle that job. So I'll probably be using it for that purpose. Am I the only user of that compiler or are there others?
paul
