On 1/15/2013 11:19 AM, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote:
Just a = is enough?
This worked! Now...... why?
Or
$ def/use dcl$path dka0::[bin]
This didn't, however.
-brian
On 1/15/2013 11:23 AM, Mark Wickens wrote:
On 15/01/2013 16:11, Brian Hechinger wrote:
What am I missing here? My VMS is way too rusty.
$ unzip :== $dka0:[bin]unzip_axp.exe
$ unzip
%DCL-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling
\DKA0\
$ dir
Directory DKA0:[BIN]
UNZIP_AXP.EXE;1 VIM-73-AXP.ZIP;1
Total of 2 files.
$
-brian
Works OK for me:
[MSW]SLAVE$ unzip :== $dka0:[bin]unzip_axp.exe
[MSW]SLAVE$ show sym unzip
UNZIP == "$DKA0:[BIN]UNZIP_AXP.EXE"
[MSW]SLAVE$
Yeah, symbol assignment works, just not when i try to actually run it:
$ unzip :== $dka0:[bin]unzip_axp.exe
$ show sym unzip
UNZIP = "DKA0:[BIN]UNZIP_AXP.EXE"
$ unzip
%DCL-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling
\DKA0\
You don't have a logical name defined for any part of that do you? For example BIN? I once had an issue because I'd defined a drive name logical as DATA which was then being translated. I think that's why using a dollar sign after logical name definitions is good practice for things like drive designators.
no logical named BIN, no.
-brian
On 15/01/2013 16:11, Brian Hechinger wrote:
What am I missing here? My VMS is way too rusty.
$ unzip :== $dka0:[bin]unzip_axp.exe
$ unzip
%DCL-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling
\DKA0\
$ dir
Directory DKA0:[BIN]
UNZIP_AXP.EXE;1 VIM-73-AXP.ZIP;1
Total of 2 files.
$
-brian
Works OK for me:
[MSW]SLAVE$ unzip :== $dka0:[bin]unzip_axp.exe
[MSW]SLAVE$ show sym unzip
UNZIP == "$DKA0:[BIN]UNZIP_AXP.EXE"
[MSW]SLAVE$
You don't have a logical name defined for any part of that do you? For example BIN? I once had an issue because I'd defined a drive name logical as DATA which was then being translated. I think that's why using a dollar sign after logical name definitions is good practice for things like drive designators.
Mark.
Just a = is enough?
Or
$ def/use dcl$path dka0::[bin]
------Origineel bericht------
Van: Brian Hechinger
Afzender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Aan: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Beantwoorden: hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Onderwerp: [HECnet] Ugh
Verzonden: 15 januari 2013 17:11
What am I missing here? My VMS is way too rusty.
$ unzip :== $dka0:[bin]unzip_axp.exe
$ unzip
%DCL-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling
\DKA0\
$ dir
Directory DKA0:[BIN]
UNZIP_AXP.EXE;1 VIM-73-AXP.ZIP;1
Total of 2 files.
$
-brian
What am I missing here? My VMS is way too rusty.
$ unzip :== $dka0:[bin]unzip_axp.exe
$ unzip
%DCL-W-IVVERB, unrecognized command verb - check validity and spelling
\DKA0\
$ dir
Directory DKA0:[BIN]
UNZIP_AXP.EXE;1 VIM-73-AXP.ZIP;1
Total of 2 files.
$
-brian
On Jan 15, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Clem Cole wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
If there's a PDP-11 PL/I compiler, join me in benchmarking using some PL/I examples I found on kednos.com ;)
Don't think I've ever seen one. I have F4, F77, Pascal, BASIC+2, COBOL, BCPL, Simula-2, Xlisp, TECO, Forth... Possibly some other things that I can't remember now...
Focal, Coral, Jovial (gag), Mumps. Then from the outside world: Algol-60, Algol-68,...
Right -- Cutler did the original PL/1 compiler for the VAX only. He bought the front end from Frieberhouse (aka LPI aka Liant - aka Ryan-Marfarland). Since it was written in PL/1, Dave had to do the development at MIT on Multics until it was good enough to could self host on the VMS. At the time, there was not market need for an PL/1 for the 11 family and if my memory serves me, I think the development for the 10's and 20s was going away. PL/1 was IBM's big systems language and they were trying to move their code base from FORTRAN and Cobol to it,
As for the PDP-11 C compiler generating poor code, that's because it did not really have too as the feeling was that the Ritchie compiler for UNIX was not that good either. Any C compiler of the time was viewed as just needed to work properly, self host and generate correct code.
It would be interesting to see how GCC does with whetstone.c.
paul
I will try that but I doubt it'll make any difference. The cisco autodetects 100/full on both of it's virtual interfaces. The AlphaVM-free link to the localhost loopback also comes up 10/half.
-brian
On 1/15/2013 10:22 AM, Ian McLaughlin wrote:
Have you tried "duplex full" under the "interface" section in your emulated cisco?
Ian
On 2013-01-15, at 7:13 AM, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net> wrote:
AlphaVM-free on the laptop
GNS3 on the laptop
Running a virtual cisco 7200 with a tunnel into my "real" router doing decnet routing.
I have HECnet connectivity from the alpha! :)
$ set host 1.13
Connected to "MIM "
However, when I start DECnet I get this message:
%EWA0, Half Duplex 10BaseT connection selected
I mean, performance isn't terribly important, but I'm just curious if there was something I could do to change that. Emulated adapter on the 7200 is FE, so I wouldn't mind at least that.
-brian
---
Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=2ABE20D85F2611E2A…
Have you tried "duplex full" under the "interface" section in your emulated cisco?
Ian
On 2013-01-15, at 7:13 AM, Brian Hechinger <wonko at 4amlunch.net> wrote:
AlphaVM-free on the laptop
GNS3 on the laptop
Running a virtual cisco 7200 with a tunnel into my "real" router doing decnet routing.
I have HECnet connectivity from the alpha! :)
$ set host 1.13
Connected to "MIM "
However, when I start DECnet I get this message:
%EWA0, Half Duplex 10BaseT connection selected
I mean, performance isn't terribly important, but I'm just curious if there was something I could do to change that. Emulated adapter on the 7200 is FE, so I wouldn't mind at least that.
-brian
---
Filter service subscribers can train this email as spam or not-spam here: http://my.email-as.net/spamham/cgi-bin/learn.pl?messageid=2ABE20D85F2611E2A…
AlphaVM-free on the laptop
GNS3 on the laptop
Running a virtual cisco 7200 with a tunnel into my "real" router doing decnet routing.
I have HECnet connectivity from the alpha! :)
$ set host 1.13
Connected to "MIM "
>
However, when I start DECnet I get this message:
%EWA0, Half Duplex 10BaseT connection selected
I mean, performance isn't terribly important, but I'm just curious if there was something I could do to change that. Emulated adapter on the 7200 is FE, so I wouldn't mind at least that.
-brian
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at softjar.se> wrote:
If there's a PDP-11 PL/I compiler, join me in benchmarking using some PL/I examples I found on kednos.com ;)
Don't think I've ever seen one. I have F4, F77, Pascal, BASIC+2, COBOL, BCPL, Simula-2, Xlisp, TECO, Forth... Possibly some other things that I can't remember now...
Right -- Cutler did the original PL/1 compiler for the VAX only. He bought the front end from Frieberhouse (aka LPI aka Liant - aka Ryan-Marfarland). Since it was written in PL/1, Dave had to do the development at MIT on Multics until it was good enough to could self host on the VMS. At the time, there was not market need for an PL/1 for the 11 family and if my memory serves me, I think the development for the 10's and 20s was going away. PL/1 was IBM's big systems language and they were trying to move their code base from FORTRAN and Cobol to it,
As for the PDP-11 C compiler generating poor code, that's because it did not really have too as the feeling was that the Ritchie compiler for UNIX was not that good either. Any C compiler of the time was viewed as just needed to work properly, self host and generate correct code. For the users of DEC OS, folks tended to write in FORTRAN or Macro on the 11s (or BLISS if you were DEC - but you need a 10 to cross compile).
Again, if memory serves me at all here, Cutler was so underwelhmed by the C compilers for the 11 (UNIX and non-UNIX versions) he took a stand of how could it be that hard and to prove the compiler guys wrong he said he could write one and one that generated optimal code - the results became VAX-11/C.
One of the things he did at the time (which pissed me off as a C user/hacker) was he ignores Dennis's "register" declaration - stating he could do a better job of register allocation that I could [which when we were writing targeted code was not true - the best he ever did was as good as we did and often did not go as well].
But he would later be proved more clairvoyant for different set of reasons. When we started to move code from VAXEN and PDP11s to 68K et al, then it actually did work better, because the code optimization needed to vary depending on the target and architecture constraints.
Clem
