[cctalk] Re: best C compiler(s) for varied vintage programming
The server itself is not pc compatible. The plug in card (motherboards) are what are meant to run ibm pc software. The server runs Netware-86 or a tinkered with version, maybe strait out of the box, but regardless N-86 is super duper unobtainium. I suppose what happens is the machine is started, the server boots. The motherboards then are initialized, served up ms-dos, served up application software. Externally each of the server's motherboard cards has some kind of terminal attached (the terminal is a Northstar keyboard that looks identical to a Keytronic 5151? But for the logo. And has a modular connector. The monitor is identical to those seen with the Eagle-2 again but for the logo. I have 1 of the keyboards, an IBM 5151 monitor, but nothing else. There may have been an intermediary circuit board that tied the k/b+monitor together and interfaced to the back of the server (the expansion card actually). My unit was kind of banged up but has a hard drive, the most banged up part of the whole shlameel. It belonges to a hassidic man in Chicago who was running his bisiness with it I assume. It got beat up in shipping, couldn't complain as he sent me it free but asked what 2 hours of his time was worth after the fact. I pp'd him 50$. The dimenaion mobo doesn't look like any pc anyone has ever aeen. In fact the innards are a bit of a horror movie. The p/s is big and nasty and is unenclosed. There's all kinds of shit hanging of the mainboard, including the pc-cards. It'll be a work in progreas for some time. Loads of fun though. Dead bugs. On Tuesday, December 27, 2022, 12:50:19 AM EST, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote: If it can run PC software, then it can handle DOS disk I/O. But BIOS and/or direct hardware access may be totally incompatible. On Tue, 27 Dec 2022, Chris via cctalk wrote: > All I can say with some certainty is this thing will read ms-dos formatted > floppies. How else could it run ibm pc software if it didn't. The individual > jumbo isa card-motherboards are doled out their rations internally from the > server departmemt. No drices excwpt what tje server itself has.
[cctalk] Re: best C compiler(s) for varied vintage programming
At no point was I asking for or expecting a recommendation of a compiler with an ide. In fact it never entered my mind. If QuickC would run lock, stock, and barrel on a Northstar Dimension I wouldn't be asking for anything. I did say the compiler couldn't rely on typical IBM PC facilities to talk to the screen. Then you brought up disk (file) i/o, which was a perfectly valid point, and I said so. So in the final analysis I guess I'll be writing w hatever on a "real" pc. Sorry for wasting the list's time. What I wanted may not exist. Were you referring to the Poppy? How did programs talk to the disk drive? On Tuesday, December 27, 2022, 01:04:00 AM EST, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 12/26/22 21:23, Chris via cctalk wrote: > I'm not conflating anything. Most of the time screen i/o is accomplished >using bios calls. That's with ms-dos/pc-dos software (whatever the percentage >of the time). But it's feally irrelevant if it's dos compatible or not, as any >code can make use of the bios subroutines. That's an immediate show stopper if >you can't get feedback from the compiler. Please no references to early time >sharing Sure you are. Lattice had no IDE; it was strictly command-line driven--if the input required a text editor, it was up to you to furnish one. If the MSDOS hosting system used a BIOS, fine. But not all did. Consider the MSDOS platforms that interfaced to a simple serial terminal. In any case, console and file I/O is done via the DOS API. How DOS does things is no concern of the compiler. This is the way before fancy screen I/O that we did things. Before that, it was with punched cards. --Chuck
[cctalk] Re: best C compiler(s) for varied vintage programming
On 12/26/22 21:23, Chris via cctalk wrote: > I'm not conflating anything. Most of the time screen i/o is accomplished > using bios calls. That's with ms-dos/pc-dos software (whatever the percentage > of the time). But it's feally irrelevant if it's dos compatible or not, as > any code can make use of the bios subroutines. That's an immediate show > stopper if you can't get feedback from the compiler. Please no references to > early time sharing Sure you are. Lattice had no IDE; it was strictly command-line driven--if the input required a text editor, it was up to you to furnish one. If the MSDOS hosting system used a BIOS, fine. But not all did. Consider the MSDOS platforms that interfaced to a simple serial terminal. In any case, console and file I/O is done via the DOS API. How DOS does things is no concern of the compiler. This is the way before fancy screen I/O that we did things. Before that, it was with punched cards. --Chuck
[cctalk] Re: best C compiler(s) for varied vintage programming
OK. You guys are all over the place. I do think you are confusing Compiler and Run Time first off. I ran Turbo C on my DEC Rainbow which had MS-DOS compatibility but not PC-DOS/PC BIOS compatibility. TCC would run in this environment (modulo it's use of INT 18 which I did a hack to allow on the Rainbow which used that interrupt for its screen code). TCC would read files off the disk with MS-DOS calls to open the file, etc. Same with writing. It worked on all machines because it did this. It was no different than MASM or other command line compilers at the time which generally (but not always) avoided PC BIOS calls. For the Rainbow, if I wanted to use vanilla DOS, I used the default run time. If I wanted to use an optimized version that I had back then (but haven't seen recently), I had to add a bunch of command line flags to get it to swap out what's the equivalent of libc.a and crt0.o on Unix/Linux. So, you could write a program than runs on any MS-DOS computer. Or, you could use your own libc to do the low-level stuff and have it run on a specific computer. It would still need to be MS-DOS (though CP/M 86 was possible with a .EXE to .CMD converter and there were also hacks to convert the .OBJ files to .o files that some Unix-based loaders could cope with, but I really haven't seen those anywhere in a long time, though I've not needed to look). DOS handled all the weird formatting differences between a DEC Rainbow, IBM-PC and whatever other weird thing TCC ran in (at least in the early days). There was also no official support for the DEC Rainbow after the first TCC release (which is why I had to do the INT 18 hacks). If you wanted to run on raw hardware, though, you'd need to write a boot loader, which is way beyond the scope of this email :). Of course, you can use dosbox or similar to run the old-school compilers / assemblers to generate the binaries on Linux / FreeBSD. I've done this lately... So if it is running MS-DOS, there's a chance you can run TCC at least on it (at least early versions). The early versions were more MS-DOS-centric and less 'only runs on PC-DOS' at least. I moved on to FreeBSD/Linux around this time, so I don't know how things evolved. Warner On Mon, Dec 26, 2022 at 10:40 PM Chris via cctalk wrote: > Ok now some things are coming back. Borland compilers work from the > ms-dos command line. Bcc 5.5? came with an old textbook. But the Dimension, > although I assume has some sort of command line structure, doesn't have an > ms-dos command line. So let's just say tje program got up and running, even > compiled code (all that assumes a lot). How is it going to save the .obj > file. The file structure of Northstar dos would have to be identical to > ms-dos, 8.3. It would have to be able to read an ms-dos formatted disk. And > the main kicker is the object codw format, creating a 256 byte psp. Amongst > other shit I have to assume. Or does ms-dos itself handle some of that. Is > a compiler'a executable format compatible with this. This thing is binary > compatible in a broad sense. But can you simply for instance run Linux > wares on bsd?
[cctalk] Re: best C compiler(s) for varied vintage programming
If it can run PC software, then it can handle DOS disk I/O. But BIOS and/or direct hardware access may be totally incompatible. On Tue, 27 Dec 2022, Chris via cctalk wrote: All I can say with some certainty is this thing will read ms-dos formatted floppies. How else could it run ibm pc software if it didn't. The individual jumbo isa card-motherboards are doled out their rations internally from the server departmemt. No drices excwpt what tje server itself has.
[cctalk] Re: best C compiler(s) for varied vintage programming
All I can say with some certainty is this thing will read ms-dos formatted floppies. How else could it run ibm pc software if it didn't. The individual jumbo isa card-motherboards are doled out their rations internally from the server departmemt. No drices excwpt what tje server itself has.
[cctalk] Re: best C compiler(s) for varied vintage programming
Ok now some things are coming back. Borland compilers work from the ms-dos command line. Bcc 5.5? came with an old textbook. But the Dimension, although I assume has some sort of command line structure, doesn't have an ms-dos command line. So let's just say tje program got up and running, even compiled code (all that assumes a lot). How is it going to save the .obj file. The file structure of Northstar dos would have to be identical to ms-dos, 8.3. It would have to be able to read an ms-dos formatted disk. And the main kicker is the object codw format, creating a 256 byte psp. Amongst other shit I have to assume. Or does ms-dos itself handle some of that. Is a compiler'a executable format compatible with this. This thing is binary compatible in a broad sense. But can you simply for instance run Linux wares on bsd?
[cctalk] Re: best C compiler(s) for varied vintage programming
I'm not conflating anything. Most of the time screen i/o is accomplished using bios calls. That's with ms-dos/pc-dos software (whatever the percentage of the time). But it's feally irrelevant if it's dos compatible or not, as any code can make use of the bios subroutines. That's an immediate show stopper if you can't get feedback from the compiler. Please no references to early time sharing Basically when I say PC I mean in the sense of IBM PC. Unless I was being careless I wouldn't refer to a Zenith Z-100 as a pc. You alluded to a program needing hosting on a specific platform. Off the top of my head I couldn't think of a means whereby a compiler could be generic enough to run on a variety of computers that simply have an 80x86. I have to reread Fred's post ... If you wrote 8086 cose in the 70s it was 16 bit. Gcc compiles to 16 bit? Frankly can't remember but am having difficulty understanding why it would. I guess I'm forgettting gcc owes it's existence to Richard S., not Linus T. On Monday, December 26, 2022, 11:09:04 PM EST, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 12/26/22 19:46, Chris via cctalk wrote: > Not all compilers were designed specifically to run on an ibm pc. If the >compiler itself utilzes bios fumction calls to display anything, it will not >run on anything but an pc or compatible. If you're referring to saving object >code to disk, well I giess that's a good question. But there were compilers >prior to tje 5150, and even after, a few of which, I have to imagine, had some >other means to save files. > It seems to me that you're conflating the IBM PC BIOS and MS-DOS. LC was available for a wide variety of platforms. We ran Lattice on a non-PC compatible (80186 with no memory-mapped display) To quote the page I pointed to: "Lattice C was ported to MVS, VMS, Unix, OS/2, Amiga, Atari ST, and Sinclair." My point being that the file I/O of the system hosting the compiler would be used. If you're running it on an x86-based MSDOS OS, you'll use MSDOS I/O. That does not imply a PC, only an x86 machine that can host MSDOS. If you want vintage, I think that there's a K&R C source on github: https://github.com/AoiMoe/knrcc Some time ago, I revisited some code I wrote in the late 1970s-early 1980s and found that gcc didn't like it at all. As mentioned, there are a host of C cross-compilers. --Chuck
[cctalk] Re: best C compiler(s) for varied vintage programming
On Tue, 27 Dec 2022, Chris via cctalk wrote:
Not all compilers were designed specifically to run on an ibm pc. If the
compiler itself utilzes bios fumction calls to display anything, it will
not run on anything but an pc or compatible. If you're referring to
saving object code to disk, well I giess that's a good question. But
there were compilers prior to tje 5150, and even after, a few of which,
I have to imagine, had some other means to save files.
In general, a compiler will use the operating system for its file I/O.
CP/M, MS-DOS, etc.
The problem that you are referring to, and yes, it is a real problem, is
generally an issue of programs that go below DOS, and even below the BIOS,
and do hardware access of video memory, keyboard, etc. for "improved
performance". It is impractical to do a graphical user interface without
doing that.
Therefore, what you want is a "command line" based compiler.
Those tend to be hardware agnostic.
Many/most of those were before ANSI C, and complied with the compiler
author's interpretations of the K&R holy scripturees. So, there are
differences, such as whether puts() appends a newline by default, etc.
One small one that I found was quick and easy to get started with, was the
DeSmet "Personal C Compiler"; it tends to work fine on MS-DOS macines that
are VERY NOT PC compatible.
For larger projects, Lattice C was the major workhorse for most
developers.
A graphical "IDE" ("Integrated Develpment Environment", TOTALLY
unrelated to IDE "Integrated Device Electronics", as used on hard drives)
is where you would encounter the difficulties.
But, even some of those will sometimes work on some machines that are
only "close" to PC compatible.
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
[cctalk] Re: best C compiler(s) for varied vintage programming
On 27-Dec-22 12:19 PM, Chris via cctalk wrote: It cannot rely on bios/ms-dos services for compiling preferably. Iow I'd like to perform what I want to do on the target machine itself, LOL which is hysterical as I've never even seen it boot even once. I could complie on a standard pc I suppose and pop a disk in the Northstar Dimension. It would be nice if it's optimized for it's 80186. Or at least supports it's instructions. My goal is to get MINIX running on it, as the original Netware-86 OS has proven to be more rare then really anything else. From there I'd like to figure out how to support the pc compatible (or so we're told) logic boards that are plugged into the motherboard like standard isa cards, and even have 34 contacts on their card edge. It would be nice if someone had the ideal compiler package they don't need and could sell. I don't know anything about the Dimension, can it boot regular MSDOS floppies? Circa late 80s I used to recompile the Minix 1-point-something kernel and utilities under Minix on a plain 8088 clone with two (IIRC 360k) floppies only, no HD. The Minix C compiler (Toby mentioned Amsterdam, that sounds like it) took a lng while, but it was doable and actually worked. I still have all the diskettes for it somewhere.
[cctalk] Re: best C compiler(s) for varied vintage programming
On 12/26/22 19:46, Chris via cctalk wrote: > Not all compilers were designed specifically to run on an ibm pc. If the > compiler itself utilzes bios fumction calls to display anything, it will not > run on anything but an pc or compatible. If you're referring to saving object > code to disk, well I giess that's a good question. But there were compilers > prior to tje 5150, and even after, a few of which, I have to imagine, had > some other means to save files. > It seems to me that you're conflating the IBM PC BIOS and MS-DOS. LC was available for a wide variety of platforms. We ran Lattice on a non-PC compatible (80186 with no memory-mapped display) To quote the page I pointed to: "Lattice C was ported to MVS, VMS, Unix, OS/2, Amiga, Atari ST, and Sinclair." My point being that the file I/O of the system hosting the compiler would be used. If you're running it on an x86-based MSDOS OS, you'll use MSDOS I/O. That does not imply a PC, only an x86 machine that can host MSDOS. If you want vintage, I think that there's a K&R C source on github: https://github.com/AoiMoe/knrcc Some time ago, I revisited some code I wrote in the late 1970s-early 1980s and found that gcc didn't like it at all. As mentioned, there are a host of C cross-compilers. --Chuck
[cctalk] Re: best C compiler(s) for varied vintage programming
Not all compilers were designed specifically to run on an ibm pc. If the compiler itself utilzes bios fumction calls to display anything, it will not run on anything but an pc or compatible. If you're referring to saving object code to disk, well I giess that's a good question. But there were compilers prior to tje 5150, and even after, a few of which, I have to imagine, had some other means to save files. Was the development platform for the D* a pc? Maybe it was for all I know. Seeing it sought emulate pc (hardwate) I guess it could seem natural. But not a necessity as it was a type of server that allowed individual pc compatible SIXTY TWO pin cards to boot and run a pc os and applications. The D* booted it's own dos. Which may or may not be Netwate-86 itself, can't say. I have.my own manuals for this thing (but can't find them) and it seems every piece of documentation that ever existed is available for download. So I I only have a cursory underatanding of this beast at the moment. Maybe I'm just assuming it doesn't habe some low level pc s/w xompatibility ... On Monday, December 26, 2022, 10:22:22 PM EST, Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote: On 12/26/22 18:19, Chris via cctalk wrote: > It cannot rely on bios/ms-dos services for compiling preferably Huh? Exactly what should it do for file I/O? --Chuck
[cctalk] Re: best C compiler(s) for varied vintage programming
On 12/26/22 18:19, Chris via cctalk wrote: > It cannot rely on bios/ms-dos services for compiling preferably Huh? Exactly what should it do for file I/O? --Chuck
[cctalk] Re: best C compiler(s) for varied vintage programming
On 12/26/22 18:19, Chris via cctalk wrote: > It cannot rely on bios/ms-dos services for compiling preferably. Iow I'd like > to perform what I want to do on the target machine itself, LOL which is > hysterical as I've never even seen it boot even once. I could complie on a > standard pc I suppose and pop a disk in the Northstar Dimension. It would be > nice if it's optimized for it's 80186. Or at least supports it's > instructions. My goal is to get MINIX running on it, as the original > Netware-86 OS has proven to be more rare then really anything else. From > there I'd like to figure out how to support the pc compatible (or so we're > told) logic boards that are plugged into the motherboard like standard isa > cards, and even have 34 contacts on their card edge. > > It would be nice if someone had the ideal compiler package they don't need > and could sell. I'm not sure that I understand what you're after, but if you want a period-correct x86 C, Lattice C was what we used and what Microsoft recommended. https://winworldpc.com/product/lattice-c/2x However, note that LC is not ANSI C90 conforming. But it will run fine on a 5150. The run-time, of course, is your own lookout. --Chuck
[cctalk] Re: best C compiler(s) for varied vintage programming
On Tue, 27 Dec 2022, Chris via cctalk wrote: It cannot rely on bios/ms-dos services for compiling preferably. Iow I'd like to perform what I want to do on the target machine itself, LOL which is hysterical as I've never even seen it boot even once. I could complie on a standard pc I suppose and pop a disk in the Northstar Dimension. It would be nice if it's optimized for it's 80186. Or at least supports it's instructions. My goal is to get MINIX running on it, as the original Netware-86 OS has proven to be more rare then really anything else. From there I'd like to figure out how to support the pc compatible (or so we're told) logic boards that are plugged into the motherboard like standard isa cards, and even have 34 contacts on their card edge. Am I misunderstanding something? (or over-reacting to a typo?) 8 bit ISA cards, for 5150/5160 have 62 contacts. not 34 I thought that the Northstar Dimension had same/similar 16 bit ISA (5170) is 98 pins? (including the 62 pin bus) Apple 2 is 50 S100 is 100 SA400/450 (5.25") floppy interface is 34 contacts. SA800/850 (8") interface is 50 contacts
[cctalk] best C compiler(s) for varied vintage programming
It cannot rely on bios/ms-dos services for compiling preferably. Iow I'd like to perform what I want to do on the target machine itself, LOL which is hysterical as I've never even seen it boot even once. I could complie on a standard pc I suppose and pop a disk in the Northstar Dimension. It would be nice if it's optimized for it's 80186. Or at least supports it's instructions. My goal is to get MINIX running on it, as the original Netware-86 OS has proven to be more rare then really anything else. From there I'd like to figure out how to support the pc compatible (or so we're told) logic boards that are plugged into the motherboard like standard isa cards, and even have 34 contacts on their card edge. It would be nice if someone had the ideal compiler package they don't need and could sell.
[cctalk] Searching for Cisco Catalyst 3920 Token Ring switch firmware
Hello all, As the subject implies, I'm on a search for Cisco Catalyst 3920 Token Ring switch firmware. AFAIK, these units are actually from a company Cisco acquired. They definitely don't run IOS or CatOS, and have an odd full-screen interactive menu interface. It worked when I received it, but after a power outage, the firmware got corrupted, leaving all interfaces effectively dead. It seems that there is no official way to get a copy of the image from a working unit, either, as I've had people attempt it. The general naming pattern is supposedly cat3900-main-gz.x-y-z.bin, where [I believe] x, y, and z would represent some sort of version information. If anyone has this file, or any leads as to where I might find it, I'd be forever grateful. Apparently, even Cisco employees cannot find it nowadays. Thanks much, jpw
[cctalk] Re: Searching for a few good TI Silent 700 parts
On Mon, 26 Dec 2022, Sellam Abraham via cctalk wrote: I had some people wanting keyboards for their homebrew projects, and these things being so common and (to me) boring I had no compunctions parting out the keyboard for it, which I sold as a complete module. So I have the rest of the unit waiting for someone like you to come along. I remember when a PORTABLE TERMINAL was really exciting! On at least some of them, there were documented jumpers to separate the modem from the terminal and use either or both with a odd homemade cable to a connector on the back. -- Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com
[cctalk] Re: Searching for a few good TI Silent 700 parts
Hi Charles. I'll try to check out whether or not the unit prints later this afternoon or evening and get back to you. I had some people wanting keyboards for their homebrew projects, and these things being so common and (to me) boring I had no compunctions parting out the keyboard for it, which I sold as a complete module. So I have the rest of the unit waiting for someone like you to come along. Sellam On Sat, Dec 24, 2022 at 11:46 AM Charles via cctalk wrote: > In fact it is a 745 :) If the printhead has all its pixels working, I'd > like to buy it. > > No keyboard at all, or just nonfunctional? Those particular keyswitches > seem to be unobtainium nowadays... > > thanks > > Charles > > On 12/24/22 12:00, cctalk-requ...@classiccmp.org wrote: > > Message: 2 > > Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2022 10:56:19 -0800 > > From: Sellam Abraham > > Subject: [cctalk] Re: Searching for a few good TI Silent 700 parts > > To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" > > > > Message-ID: > > < > cahjbwnt0uf8_89co8fn8g3bdo63oskjkzpof9weodnxewdp...@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hi Charles. > > > > Which specific model? > > > > I have a 745 sans keyboard that can be parted out further. > > > > Sellam > > > > On Fri, Dec 23, 2022, 10:54 AM Charles via cctalk > > wrote: > > > >> I have a Silent 700 terminal that only needs a printhead (several > >> missing pixels on mine) and three keyswitches (I have the keytops so it > >> doesn't matter which ones). > >> > >> My other 700 is fully functional and it'd be nice to finish fixing the > >> other one too! Can anyone help? > >> > >> thanks > >> > >> Charles > >> > >>
