From: Doug Ingraham Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:53 AM > This is a great story! And it probably indicates that when developing the > Toad-1 this particular diagnostic was never run from an original DEC generated > tape or the Toad-1 would have failed the diagnostic. Alternatively assembling > the diag on the restoration project would have yielded a working multiply.
As it happens, this diagnostic is KI-10 specific, so no recompilation of the KL-10 diagnostics would have caught it. In addition, because the XKL-1 CPU was supposed to be identical to the KL-10, it needed to pass the diagnostics *as provided* for the KL-10. > So is someone going to fix the multiply instruction in the 20+ year old Toad? > <grin> Actually, they tried, but because they had stopped using the Toad-1 several years earlier (and donated all the remaining spare parts to the museum), they had no way to test in-house, and limited cycles for developing a fix. If we ever need to recompile diagnostics for the KI-10 (or, mirabile dictu, a KA-10!) we'll use a Toad-2. Rich