Re: [9fans] 2c/2l make sense, but why 1c/1l?

[rt9f . 3141]

I want to thank everyone who replied.  It makes sense to me that 1c was used 
for embedded 68k coprocessors, Blit, etc.  Thanks!
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-Mf5c7402508a98c15ab19221c
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] 2c/2l make sense, but why 1c/1l?

[Ethan Gardener]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021, at 11:26 PM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> I think they might have been there for some other reason and then was used 
> for Inferno, which they somewhat had going on a Palm Pilot in some form (not 
> necessarily as the native kernel).
> If I waded through a ton of archive material I could probably find the 
> latter, to see what it was, but I'm not sure it's really worthwhile now.

I know what you mean. I know I've read somewhere what that other reason was, 
but finding it is a historian's job, and I'm no good at being a historian. ;) I 
evidently didn't read it on 9fans, I just searched my email archive of it which 
goes back to late April 2011. 

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M9ab90f17db9f582994723878
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] 2c/2l make sense, but why 1c/1l?

[Joseph Stewart]

Cool. I had a talk with Bradley (and maybe you Charles) at some past
IW9P about mangling the 68k compilers to support Coldfire but I never
went forward with it. I had inherited supporting a device that was
barely running uCLinux that I REALLY wanted to run Inferno on...

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 3:27 PM Charles Forsyth
 wrote:
>
> I think they might have been there for some other reason and then was used 
> for Inferno, which they somewhat had going on a Palm Pilot in some form (not 
> necessarily as the native kernel).
> If I waded through a ton of archive material I could probably find the 
> latter, to see what it was, but I'm not sure it's really worthwhile now.
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 8:16 PM Joseph Stewart  
> wrote:
>>
>> Charles could probably answer this better than me, but weren't the 68k
>> compilers made to support Inferno?
>> -joe
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:18 PM  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I'm wondering about the history of the 68000 compiler/tools.  Support for 
>> > the 68020 makes sense, it had an MMU, but 68000 did not.  And it had some 
>> > design flaws that prevented it from working correctly with the external 
>> > MMU, the 68451.  So why does/did Plan 9 have a 68000 compiler?  Did Plan 9 
>> > ever run on an MMU-less 68000?
>> >
>> > thx.
>> > 9fans / 9fans / see discussions + participants + delivery options Permalink
>
> 9fans / 9fans / see discussions + participants + delivery options Permalink

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M5d08695f6eacd2fc934cd50c
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] 2c/2l make sense, but why 1c/1l?

[Charles Forsyth]

To be fair, I probably should convert my machine with lots of disks with
lots of historical partitions into a single tree with the contents just as
subdirectories.
It's not as though anyone's going to use them as images ever again. They
only ended up that way because the originals were in strange formats on
increasingly dodgy devices, and it was easier just to copy the partitions
across to partitions of newer bigger drives.

As an aside, it still amuses me that VN's worm jukebox would now fit on an
SD card that I could easily lose.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 11:26 PM Charles Forsyth 
wrote:

> I think they might have been there for some other reason and then was used
> for Inferno, which they somewhat had going on a Palm Pilot in some form
> (not necessarily as the native kernel).
> If I waded through a ton of archive material I could probably find the
> latter, to see what it was, but I'm not sure it's really worthwhile now.
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 8:16 PM Joseph Stewart 
> wrote:
>
>> Charles could probably answer this better than me, but weren't the 68k
>> compilers made to support Inferno?
>> -joe
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:18 PM  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I'm wondering about the history of the 68000 compiler/tools.  Support
>> for the 68020 makes sense, it had an MMU, but 68000 did not.  And it had
>> some design flaws that prevented it from working correctly with the
>> external MMU, the 68451.  So why does/did Plan 9 have a 68000 compiler?
>> Did Plan 9 ever run on an MMU-less 68000?
>> >
>> > thx.
>> > 9fans / 9fans / see discussions + participants + delivery options
>> Permalink

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-Mf5d48b33b42aa6f6e483a745
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] 2c/2l make sense, but why 1c/1l?

[Charles Forsyth]

I think they might have been there for some other reason and then was used
for Inferno, which they somewhat had going on a Palm Pilot in some form
(not necessarily as the native kernel).
If I waded through a ton of archive material I could probably find the
latter, to see what it was, but I'm not sure it's really worthwhile now.

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 8:16 PM Joseph Stewart 
wrote:

> Charles could probably answer this better than me, but weren't the 68k
> compilers made to support Inferno?
> -joe
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:18 PM  wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm wondering about the history of the 68000 compiler/tools.  Support
> for the 68020 makes sense, it had an MMU, but 68000 did not.  And it had
> some design flaws that prevented it from working correctly with the
> external MMU, the 68451.  So why does/did Plan 9 have a 68000 compiler?
> Did Plan 9 ever run on an MMU-less 68000?
> >
> > thx.
> > 9fans / 9fans / see discussions + participants + delivery options
> Permalink

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M0d6f8b10f10462355ff6de16
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] 2c/2l make sense, but why 1c/1l?

[Skip Tavakkolian]

I am speculating that it was to support compiling code for a version of the
Blit. 630MTG used 68000 and DMD5620 used AT WE3210.
gnot used the 68020.


On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:18 PM  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm wondering about the history of the 68000 compiler/tools.  Support for
> the 68020 makes sense, it had an MMU, but 68000 did not.  And it had some
> design flaws that prevented it from working correctly with the external
> MMU, the 68451.  So why does/did Plan 9 have a 68000 compiler?  Did Plan 9
> ever run on an MMU-less 68000?
>
> thx.
> *9fans * / 9fans / see discussions
>  + participants
>  + delivery options
>  Permalink
> 
>

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-Ma25c671e619d8a057d82c591
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] 2c/2l make sense, but why 1c/1l?

[Joseph Stewart]

Charles could probably answer this better than me, but weren't the 68k
compilers made to support Inferno?
-joe

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:18 PM  wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm wondering about the history of the 68000 compiler/tools.  Support for the 
> 68020 makes sense, it had an MMU, but 68000 did not.  And it had some design 
> flaws that prevented it from working correctly with the external MMU, the 
> 68451.  So why does/did Plan 9 have a 68000 compiler?  Did Plan 9 ever run on 
> an MMU-less 68000?
>
> thx.
> 9fans / 9fans / see discussions + participants + delivery options Permalink

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M109e864d31355d12fb3ef3b6
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] 2c/2l make sense, but why 1c/1l?

[Anthony Sorace]

The compiler suite has had a few compilers in it which were used for things 
other than kernel ports. I can’t say about the 68000 specifically, but that 
would be my guess. The i960 and DSP3210 compilers are other examples. 

> On Feb 23, 2021, at 21:18, Steve Simon  wrote:
> 
> I don't believe a 68000 compiler was ever released by the labs but there
> may have been one - some blit terminals had 68000s (and maybe gnots?) so
> its plausable.
> 
> There was a port of the plan9 compilers to the VAX but I think its
> sourcecode was lost (jmk found an executable some years).
> 
> -Steve

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M918f214afdc5ea36e829ea95
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] 2c/2l make sense, but why 1c/1l?

[Steve Simon]

I don't believe a 68000 compiler was ever released by the labs but there
may have been one - some blit terminals had 68000s (and maybe gnots?) so
its plausable.

There was a port of the plan9 compilers to the VAX but I think its
sourcecode was lost (jmk found an executable some years).

-Steve

--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: 
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf34475f1bb69674a-M93c386537b2c045b411b3708
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription