HECnet

hecnet@lists.dfupdate.se

15556 discussions

PDP-11 GCC back-end, was Re: [HECnet] Raspberry Pi + SIMH VAX?

by Paul_Koning＠Dell.com

On Jun 6, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: On 06/06/2012 09:01 PM, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote: Strange that gcc has so much trouble for VAX. I thought that had gotten a fair amount of care & feeding lately. pdp11, that's a different story, though I do try to do some more bits from time to time... Are you working on that?? I recently ran across this page: http://www.diane-neisius.de/pdp11/index_E.html ...in which a very enthusiastic person got it running some time ago, but with some pretty significant restrictions. I'd truly love to see the PDP-11 GCC back-end be resurrected and made to be fully functional. It may have a very limited appeal, but I already use GCC-based cross-compilers for many different architectures in both my work and recreational activities (both mostly ARM7), and would love to be able to do some bare-metal PDP-11 work with GCC as well. If you're working on this, allow me to voice my heartfelt support for this effort! -Dave Thanks. Yes, pdp11 for gcc is an actual maintained port, given that I volunteered to be the port maintainer. I've done work to clean it up, in spurts. At this point it usually generates good code. I actually have it pass a fair fraction of the GCC test suite (execution, not just compilation). Still there are issues; for example, the AC4/AC5 handling is not 100%. But at least simple mistakes like assuming that BIC does the "and" operation have been cured. :-) You can grab a recent GCC (say, 4.7.0, or gcc trunk) and configure it --target=pdp11-aout, and that will build you a GCC that produces pdp11 code (standalone as opposed to for a particular OS). Binutils can also be configured that way, and if you have that, then you can have GNU tools compile, assemble, and link for you. One unfortunate thing is that the pdp11-bsd2 flavor was removed some time ago; I haven't looked into what it would take to bring it back. (I have near-zero experience with BSD 2.) paul

12 years, 11 months

Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::

by Paul_Koning＠Dell.com

On Jun 7, 2012, at 1:27 PM, Johnny Billquist wrote: On 2012-06-07 19:18, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote: On Jun 7, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Mark Benson wrote: ... We established that, yes. That's where my idea of using pcap and running the interface in promicuous mode came out of. Why promiscuous? So long as you can get the DECnet style individual address delivered, and the multicast addresses that DECnet would register, I don't see a need for promiscuous mode. Right. There is only need for promiscous mode if you sit on an interface with the "wrong" MAC address. However, if you want to have your DECnet stack portable, you will need to go down that path, as some Unixes don't have a way to change the MAC address of an interface at all. Also, to comment on your previous post, Paul. Correct, the API of the current Linux DECnet is not possible to adopt to a new user-level DECnet implementation, as they use explicit system calls, and you can't siphon those off. Had it all been done through a decnet library, it would have been easier. But the current Linux solution is (I think) similar to the Ultrix one. And it do make sense from a pure interface point of view. Johnny Yes, I believe the socket approach is at least similar to the Ultrix one. It would be possible to create a more implementation-neutral library style API. Behind that would be your choice of a thin wrapper around DECnet sockets (for the existing DECnet/Linux) or some suitable inter-process communication to talk to a user-mode DECnet daemon. Either that, or maybe FUSE could be abused for this? paul

12 years, 11 months

Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::

by bqt＠softjar.se

On 2012-06-07 19:18, Paul_Koning at Dell.com wrote: On Jun 7, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Mark Benson wrote: ... We established that, yes. That's where my idea of using pcap and running the interface in promicuous mode came out of. Why promiscuous? So long as you can get the DECnet style individual address delivered, and the multicast addresses that DECnet would register, I don't see a need for promiscuous mode. Right. There is only need for promiscous mode if you sit on an interface with the "wrong" MAC address. However, if you want to have your DECnet stack portable, you will need to go down that path, as some Unixes don't have a way to change the MAC address of an interface at all. Also, to comment on your previous post, Paul. Correct, the API of the current Linux DECnet is not possible to adopt to a new user-level DECnet implementation, as they use explicit system calls, and you can't siphon those off. Had it all been done through a decnet library, it would have been easier. But the current Linux solution is (I think) similar to the Ultrix one. And it do make sense from a pure interface point of view. Johnny

12 years, 11 months

Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::

by Paul_Koning＠Dell.com

On Jun 7, 2012, at 9:48 AM, Mark Benson wrote: ... We established that, yes. That's where my idea of using pcap and running the interface in promicuous mode came out of. Why promiscuous? So long as you can get the DECnet style individual address delivered, and the multicast addresses that DECnet would register, I don't see a need for promiscuous mode. paul

12 years, 11 months

Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::

by Paul_Koning＠Dell.com

On Jun 7, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Mark Benson wrote: On 7 Jun 2012, at 11:42, Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com> wrote: On 06/07/2012 06:37 AM, Sampsa Laine wrote: Howabout starting it as a daemon (running as root) via the boot scripts, and have non-root users's programs access it via a socket? Cool idea - you could even have multiple hosts connect this way but export one DECNET endpoint, i.e. run CTERM on Box A whilst FAL goes to Box B, and MAIL to Box C :) Yes, you could multiplex/demultiplex it any way you wanted. It would open up all sorts of interesting configuration possibilities. ... and all this without needing to dick with the kernel? Sounds like a plan gentlemen, so now all we need is a long suffering coder type to do all the hard work ;) The main difference I can see vs. having the implementation in the kernel is that the kernel one gives you an integrated API. DecNET/Linux uses sockets, so an existing socket based app can be made to run over DECnet with potentially very little work. On the other hand, a userland implementation would need a different mechanism for the communication between the application and the DECnet daemon. paul

12 years, 11 months

Size of HECnet

by md.benson＠gmail.com

The last version of HP Pathworks 32 (7.2 I think?) works well in Windows XP 32-bit. I have a node that uses it but it's not switched on much. -- Mark Benson http://markbenson.org/blog http://twitter.com/MDBenson

12 years, 11 months

Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::

by wonko＠4amlunch.net

On 6/6/2012 10:31 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: On 06/06/2012 10:11 PM, Joe Ferraro wrote: This isn't the thread for it, I realize.... the product slick states that the switch does BGP, HSRP, OSPF, VRRP, etc.. again, not my area of expertise... is this still considered a switch? Hmm, it may actually be ok then. I've not worked with any of the 49xx series. Supporting those dynamic routing protocols certainly suggests that it knows how to route! ;) Hey Brian, have you ever worked with those hybrid router/switch boxen? Ok, I stand somewhat corrected. IP SERVICES can do tunnels on switches. Interesting. My 3560g can't do decnet routing, however. (not that i need it to) Just FYI, the 4948 is a BAD ASS switch. It's basically a single sup Cat 4500 with a single line card crammed into a 1U case. When you say hybrid router/switch boxes your talking about the ISR stuff like George was talking about recently, yes? I now have THREE of those in the forms of an 1811w, and 1841 and the recent acquisition of a 2851. The ones George has are the bigger ones, the 3000 series I believe. Interesting beasts. -brian

12 years, 11 months

User mode DECnet (was Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::)

by bqt＠softjar.se

On 2012-06-07 18:18, Bob Armstrong wrote: I was meaning as in non-root. Ah, well, but that's good because it means kernel hacks are not required. Right. Basically, you need to interface to ethernet. That you do the same way as my bridge, for instance. All the rest is just massaging the data in the packet, and eventually passing data to the next higher/lower level. The one semi-sensitive thing is that there are timers that needs to be kept, and things that needs to happen at times. But I think they all have such tolerances that you will be good even running it all in userland. Johnny

12 years, 11 months

Size of HECnet

by bqt＠softjar.se

On 2012-06-07 18:11, Kari Uusim ki wrote: On 7.6.2012 5:05, Joe Ferraro wrote: On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Sampsa Laine <sampsa at mac.com <mailto:sampsa at mac.com>> wrote: I've got a Windows NT 4.0 VM up occasionally too.. Sampsa boy that gives me bad memories of long days ... perhaps you should've gone for NT 3.50 while you were at it... I do have a Win 3.11 box running... perhaps there's a decnet stack for it?!!? There is a DECnet stack for DOS and Windows in the Pathworks V5 or V6 client kit. Those versions were meant to be used on Windows'es before Windows NT4. Then the Pathworks32 kit was released and that could be used on WNT4.0 and Windows 2000. Maybe on XP as well. Don't remember for sure. Some pretty recent version of Pathworks32 works on Windows XP anyway. Johnny

12 years, 11 months

User mode DECnet (was Multinet Tunnel Connections to SG1::)

by bob＠jfcl.com

I was meaning as in non-root. Ah, well, but that's good because it means kernel hacks are not required. Bob

12 years, 11 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

HECnet