On 11/8/2015 11:50 AM, Josh Dersch wrote: > Hi all - > > As noted in a mail last week, I now have my PDP-11/05 running with working > core (8KW). I had some time last night to try loading in some "real" > software, and I started with the PDP-11 paper-tape BASIC, which I've > successfully loaded into memory (in theory). At this point, it became > clear that there's still an issue or two to iron out in the CPU; BASIC > behaves extremely erratically, spewing random error messages, listing > garbage, and corrupting itself and crashing pretty quickly. > > I'd run the memory exerciser MAINDECs previously (and I ran them again for > good measure) and there are no obvious issues with the memory. The system > exerciser diagnostic (ZQKB) passes, but the "11 family instruction > exerciser" (ZQKC) fails after a minute or so at PC=016014. > > I have the listing for the diagnostic (though I'm not precisely sure > whether it's exactly the same revision) from here: > http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/dec/pdp11/xxdp/diag_listings/MAINDEC-11-DZQKC-C-D_11_Family_Instruction_Exerciser_Nov73.pdf >
So, this one would likely be named something like DZQKCC.BIC (or .BIN) on disk. My guess is that yours is a different file name in the last two characters before the period. The paper tape image I found on bitsavers is two revs up from that - DZQKCE. I didn't take the time to start up a disk image and look at it. > The doc is pretty grainy but the code at 016012 doesn't actually seem to > match what I've got in memory (I disabled relocation in the test just to be > sure things didn't get moved around) and there's no failure check at that > particular point in memory either. > > I've tried the paper-tape images from Bitsavers as well as the ones on the > XXDP RL02 images floating around out there and they all yield the same > results; I suppose it's possible the CPU is failing in such a way as to > make the test reporting incorrect but it seems more likely that (a) I have > an outdated listing or (b) I'm misinterpreting the results somehow. > > Anyone have any experience with this particular diagnostic? > > Thanks, > Josh > The version can normally be identified either by the file name or on the paper tape if you are using a real paper tape. My guess is that the version you are running does not match the PDF. Some of us also have diagnostic listings of various versions, and have some of them on Microfiche. Unfortunately, I do not seem to have a listing for DZQKC (any revision). [It isn't missing - it isn't even listed in the fiche index. :( ] HOWEVER, I *DO* have a *paper* listing of revision E (among others). The code starting at 16002 reads 016002 105737 177564 TSTB @#TPS 016006 100375 BPL .-4 016010 006237 177564 TSTB @#TPS 016014 000001 WAIT ; WAIT FOR FIRST INTERRUPT The routine starts at 015734 and the comment is ";CHECK TTY INTERRUPT" AND, the paper copy has a red stamp indicating that a change may be required for it to operation. LOC FROM TO 2266 200 340 14146 200 340 16164 5227 4737 16166 0 160 160 - 5227 162 - 0 164 - 1375 166 - 207 So, please provide either the complete file name you loaded (if you are loading from RX, hard disk, DECTape, etc., or the complete information on the paper tape and we should at least be able to help you figure out if they match, or not, and whether or not someone has a listing that matches and can tell you what the error might mean, and perhaps provide a scan to you (and bitsavers). JRJ
