On Aug 10, 2012, at 4:05 PM, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 08/10/2012 02:37 PM, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
Yes, the makefile sets the optimize flags. It tells it to optimize pretty hard, but I'm redoing some tests with a later version. I'm also going to try (first time I've done that) profile directed optimizing.
The simh code at one point used inline, but not any longer. It may be relying on recent compilers to do that automaticallly, I'll find out.
What target architecture are you compiling for?
x86_64-linux. And x86_64-darwin.
paul
I suppose I could try llvm for Linux, I'm not sure if that exists on a Mac. But gcc is what I know. And it seems to do a pretty good job optimizing. For one thing, a lot of people (a number of them Intel employees) have worked hard on the Intel back end.
paul
On Aug 10, 2012, at 3:58 PM, <hvlems at zonnet.nl>
wrote:
Is gcc the only option you've got Paul?
Gcc must satisfy a lot of terget platforms, may be optimal gets defined differently?
-----Original Message-----
From: <Paul_Koning at Dell.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:37:47
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] AXP Emulation
Yes, the makefile sets the optimize flags. It tells it to optimize pretty hard, but I'm redoing some tests with a later version. I'm also going to try (first time I've done that) profile directed optimizing.
The simh code at one point used inline, but not any longer. It may be relying on recent compilers to do that automaticallly, I'll find out.
paul
On Aug 10, 2012, at 11:51 AM, <hvlems at zonnet.nl>
<hvlems at zonnet.nl> wrote:
Paul, so the makefile sets the compiler flags, right? So it might be worth figuring out how much effort the compiler puts in optimizing its output.
Windows is a relative of vms, an ugly cousin but still family. Its growth is stunted, Windows 7 is the fifth version after W 3.5. VMS grew a lot faster, with more (end user) functionalty, more stability during its first two decades.
Even then Windows 5.1 (aka XP) is stable and useful. Vista wasn't then again VMS 6.1 wasn't that mature either...
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: <Paul_Koning at Dell.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:28:45
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] AXP Emulation
In my case, gcc with the default makefile. I don't use VC (or the OS it runs on) unless serious force is applied...
paul
On Aug 10, 2012, at 3:02 AM, <hvlems at zonnet.nl>
wrote:
How was simh compiled? I used Visual C and the difference between running the compiler with optimization on or off made quite a difference for the generated code. And gcc might compile even faster codefiles.
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:07:24
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] AXP Emulation
Why is SIMH so slow though?
As far as I can understand, one MIPS is roughly one VUPS, correct?
So how come I get 14 VUPS on the same host running SIMH whilst my Hercules install peaks at 180?
Are the architectures that different (obviously they are) or what is it?
Sampsa
On 08/10/2012 02:37 PM, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote:
Yes, the makefile sets the optimize flags. It tells it to optimize pretty hard, but I'm redoing some tests with a later version. I'm also going to try (first time I've done that) profile directed optimizing.
The simh code at one point used inline, but not any longer. It may be relying on recent compilers to do that automaticallly, I'll find out.
What target architecture are you compiling for?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On 08/10/2012 03:58 PM, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote:
Is gcc the only option you've got Paul?
Gcc must satisfy a lot of terget platforms, may be optimal gets defined differently?
Pardon me for jumping in here, but I know something about this part.
GCC's code generation back-end is very tightly tuned for the target
processor. C code (or C++, or FORTRAN, ADA, Pascal, or any other
language GCC supports) is compiled to an intermediate RTL (register
transfer language) and then passed to the code generation back-end.
Various types of optimization, some language-specific and some not, some
target-specific and some not, are applied at various stages.
The end result is a situation in which the quality of the emitted
executable code for one architecture typically does not suffer when
another has had improvements made to it.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
Is gcc the only option you've got Paul?
Gcc must satisfy a lot of terget platforms, may be optimal gets defined differently?
-----Original Message-----
From: <Paul_Koning at Dell.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:37:47
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] AXP Emulation
Yes, the makefile sets the optimize flags. It tells it to optimize pretty hard, but I'm redoing some tests with a later version. I'm also going to try (first time I've done that) profile directed optimizing.
The simh code at one point used inline, but not any longer. It may be relying on recent compilers to do that automaticallly, I'll find out.
paul
On Aug 10, 2012, at 11:51 AM, <hvlems at zonnet.nl>
<hvlems at zonnet.nl> wrote:
Paul, so the makefile sets the compiler flags, right? So it might be worth figuring out how much effort the compiler puts in optimizing its output.
Windows is a relative of vms, an ugly cousin but still family. Its growth is stunted, Windows 7 is the fifth version after W 3.5. VMS grew a lot faster, with more (end user) functionalty, more stability during its first two decades.
Even then Windows 5.1 (aka XP) is stable and useful. Vista wasn't then again VMS 6.1 wasn't that mature either...
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: <Paul_Koning at Dell.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:28:45
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] AXP Emulation
In my case, gcc with the default makefile. I don't use VC (or the OS it runs on) unless serious force is applied...
paul
On Aug 10, 2012, at 3:02 AM, <hvlems at zonnet.nl>
wrote:
How was simh compiled? I used Visual C and the difference between running the compiler with optimization on or off made quite a difference for the generated code. And gcc might compile even faster codefiles.
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:07:24
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] AXP Emulation
Why is SIMH so slow though?
As far as I can understand, one MIPS is roughly one VUPS, correct?
So how come I get 14 VUPS on the same host running SIMH whilst my Hercules install peaks at 180?
Are the architectures that different (obviously they are) or what is it?
Sampsa
Yes, the makefile sets the optimize flags. It tells it to optimize pretty hard, but I'm redoing some tests with a later version. I'm also going to try (first time I've done that) profile directed optimizing.
The simh code at one point used inline, but not any longer. It may be relying on recent compilers to do that automaticallly, I'll find out.
paul
On Aug 10, 2012, at 11:51 AM, <hvlems at zonnet.nl>
<hvlems at zonnet.nl> wrote:
Paul, so the makefile sets the compiler flags, right? So it might be worth figuring out how much effort the compiler puts in optimizing its output.
Windows is a relative of vms, an ugly cousin but still family. Its growth is stunted, Windows 7 is the fifth version after W 3.5. VMS grew a lot faster, with more (end user) functionalty, more stability during its first two decades.
Even then Windows 5.1 (aka XP) is stable and useful. Vista wasn't then again VMS 6.1 wasn't that mature either...
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: <Paul_Koning at Dell.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:28:45
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] AXP Emulation
In my case, gcc with the default makefile. I don't use VC (or the OS it runs on) unless serious force is applied...
paul
On Aug 10, 2012, at 3:02 AM, <hvlems at zonnet.nl>
wrote:
How was simh compiled? I used Visual C and the difference between running the compiler with optimization on or off made quite a difference for the generated code. And gcc might compile even faster codefiles.
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:07:24
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] AXP Emulation
Why is SIMH so slow though?
As far as I can understand, one MIPS is roughly one VUPS, correct?
So how come I get 14 VUPS on the same host running SIMH whilst my Hercules install peaks at 180?
Are the architectures that different (obviously they are) or what is it?
Sampsa
On 10/08/2012 10:51 AM, hvlems at zonnet.nl wrote:
Windows is a relative of vms, an ugly cousin but still family. Its growth is stunted, Windows 7 is the fifth version after W 3.5. VMS grew a lot faster, with more (end user) functionalty, more stability during its first two decades.
Even then Windows 5.1 (aka XP) is stable and useful. Vista wasn't then again VMS 6.1 wasn't that mature either...
But VMS had the advantage that it and the processor (VAX) that ran it were designed in concert. x86 architecture and Windows are more a case of being cobbled together iteratively and separately.
--
"Worry is a misuse of imagination." -- Some Guy Called Dan Zadra
Paul, so the makefile sets the compiler flags, right? So it might be worth figuring out how much effort the compiler puts in optimizing its output.
Windows is a relative of vms, an ugly cousin but still family. Its growth is stunted, Windows 7 is the fifth version after W 3.5. VMS grew a lot faster, with more (end user) functionalty, more stability during its first two decades.
Even then Windows 5.1 (aka XP) is stable and useful. Vista wasn't then again VMS 6.1 wasn't that mature either...
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: <Paul_Koning at Dell.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:28:45
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] AXP Emulation
In my case, gcc with the default makefile. I don't use VC (or the OS it runs on) unless serious force is applied...
paul
On Aug 10, 2012, at 3:02 AM, <hvlems at zonnet.nl>
wrote:
How was simh compiled? I used Visual C and the difference between running the compiler with optimization on or off made quite a difference for the generated code. And gcc might compile even faster codefiles.
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com>
Sender: owner-hecnet at Update.UU.SE
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 23:07:24
To: <hecnet at Update.UU.SE>
Reply-To: hecnet at Update.UU.SESubject: Re: [HECnet] AXP Emulation
Why is SIMH so slow though?
As far as I can understand, one MIPS is roughly one VUPS, correct?
So how come I get 14 VUPS on the same host running SIMH whilst my Hercules install peaks at 180?
Are the architectures that different (obviously they are) or what is it?
Sampsa
On 8/10/2012 10:35 AM, Oleg Safiullin wrote:
Brian Hechinger wrote:
I've set up the bridge to start at boot on an OpenBSD machine and I am having some issues getting anything into a log file.
I start it like this:
/var/bridge/bridge -p 4711 -d /var/bridge/ > /var/bridge/bridge.log 2>&1 &
but bridge.log is always empty. At start, after sending SIGUSR1, etc.
Thoughts?
-brian
Try to apply the patch attached to shis message.
That did it, thanks!
-brian
On Aug 10, 2012, at 5:52 AM, Johnny Billquist wrote:
...
It might be worth understanding that there is nothing technical added by going to multiple areas. It is just a complication which allows you to have more nodes, but at the cost of more complex routing.
Even within one area, you can have a large number of hops between nodes. Makes no difference to DECnet. The rules for the topological layout is simple:
1. End-nodes needs to be adjacent to atleast one level 1 router.
2. All level 1 routers in an area must be able to talk with all other level 1 routers. And only level 1 routers route messages within an area, which means you cannot have an endnode in the chain.
Essentially right. But area routers include L1 router functionality (there is no such thing as an L2-only router). So for "L1 router" you should instead say "L1 or area router".
Also, endnodes and L1 routers can only talk to a router that's in the same area as they are.
Also, each area must not be partitioned, and the L2 net must not be partitioned. The L2 net is defined by the L2 routers and their direct connections, so a pair of L2 routers connected by an L1 router are not connected at L2.
Finally, an oddball case: if a LAN does not have any routers on it, then the endnodes on it can communicate among each other, even if they are in different areas. But as soon as there are routers on the LAN, the rules you mentioned apply. So suppose you have a two-area LAN, and you want to route away from it. The minimum change you need is to add one L2 router in the one area, and another L2 router in the other area.
paul
