On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Jay Jaeger <cu...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 11/8/2015 11:50 AM, Josh Dersch wrote: > > > > > 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). > Thanks, I should have thought to check the revision codes in the first place. Looks like the Bitsavers docs are from revision C; I've been running the paper-tape version that's on Bitsavers ( http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/bits/DEC/pdp11/papertapeimages/20031230/tray4.txt), which is labeled as "maindec-11-dzqkc-e-pb" which looks like it should be Revision E (which is fortunate!). If you do have the ability to scan this, I'd love to see it. Thanks, Josh > > JRJ > > >