Re: Does anyone here know Siemens STL?

[Brian Marstella via cctalk]

I worked with STL some but am much more familiar with structured text as
used by Rockwell/Allen-Bradley. However, my first exposure to PLCs after
getting out of the Navy back in 1991 was the Mitsubishi A series with a GPP
for a programmer. I found that one interesting because you could program in
ladder mode or switch to the other mode (which I can't remember the name
of) that looked exactly like assembly. The two modes were interchangeable
as far as I could tell.

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:32 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On 04/11/2017 07:03 PM, Charles Dickman via cctalk wrote:
> > The Balkanized nature of programming is interesting.
> >
> > I make a comment about C and get a flurry of responses, but ask a
> > question about a programming language that is also very common for
> > machine control and get no response at all. Not even a recognition
> > of its existence.
>
>
> I don't think that you're being quite fair.  There are boatloads of
> specialized application programming languages--I rarely pay attention to
> any of them, figuring that after your first dozen or so, it's easy
> enough to add another one.
>
> Heck,  I may even have some STL stashed away in my collection of Siemens
> PG-685 floppies.   I never was interested in looking.
>
> --Chuck
>
>

Re: Does anyone here know Siemens STL?

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 04/11/2017 07:03 PM, Charles Dickman via cctalk wrote:
> The Balkanized nature of programming is interesting.
> 
> I make a comment about C and get a flurry of responses, but ask a 
> question about a programming language that is also very common for 
> machine control and get no response at all. Not even a recognition
> of its existence.


I don't think that you're being quite fair.  There are boatloads of
specialized application programming languages--I rarely pay attention to
any of them, figuring that after your first dozen or so, it's easy
enough to add another one.

Heck,  I may even have some STL stashed away in my collection of Siemens
PG-685 floppies.   I never was interested in looking.

--Chuck

Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: John Wilson

> It would have been nice if it had stolen FORTRAN-77's idea of declaring
> a variable in the size that you want (I'm talking about INTEGER*2 vs.
> INTEGER*4 etc.), instead of just "knowing" what the difference is
> between int and long

Back in the late 70's, trying to write network code, even before we actually
ported anything (but could see it coming in the distance), it became clear
that C's type system was pretty worthless.

We defined a whole new type system, using syntax of the form 'XXXY', where
'XXX' was the type (unsigned, bit field, etc) and 'Y' was a character giving
the length (1, 2, 4, bytes; the machine's native word length - 'w'; etc,
etc). So 'bitw' was a bit-field of the machine's native word length, 'unss'
was a 16-bit unsigned, etc, etc.

So then we had an #include file "pdefs.h" which, depending on the setting of
'cc' -Dxxx command flags (this was before they starting getting set
automatically to indicate the machine type) included '11defs.h' or '68defs.h'
or whatever the case might be), so there were no #ifdef's in the source files
at all.

We used this everywhere, and it worked very well indeed.

So well that, at one point, on a dare, I moved our real-time OS to a new
architecture (the 29K) overnight (really - started at around 5PM one day, and
had it running the next day sometime - forget exactly when). Well, I'd already
gotten the debugger (written in C in the same style, with a bit of assembler
for the low-level operations) running on the 29K, so I knew where all the
pot-holes were, but still...

Most of the code modules were supposed to be portable .. and they just were.
Didn't have to touch it, just compiled for the new machine (so the exact same
source compiled for both, no ugly #ifdef's, just compile and go).


> if it's not portable then it might as well be assembly and get the
> benefits that come with that.

Sorry, I don't agree. It _is_ possible to write portable code, but even
ignoring that, the benfits of writing in a higher-level language (good
control structures, complex expressions, etc, etc) are well worth it.

I had the pleasure of working with the best MACRO-11 code I'e ever seen (a
real-time OS called 'MOS'), where the guy who wrote it (Jim Mathis) had worked
out a sdet of macro definitions that allowed him to define structures (and the
PDP-11 had an addressing mode, with a pointer to the base of the structure in
a register, that allowed you to access elements) - but even so, it wasn't as
good a tool as C.

Like I said, control structures, complex expressions etc all make things so
much clearer in C - which means they are easier to understand (when in someone
else's code), easier to debug, easier to modify, yadda-yadda. Unless I were
writing code that I _simply could not do in C_, I would not use assembler.

Noel

Re: Does anyone here know Siemens STL?

[Charles Dickman via cctalk]

The Balkanized nature of programming is interesting.

I make a comment about C and get a flurry of responses, but ask a
question about a programming language that is also very common for
machine control and get no response at all. Not even a recognition of
its existence.

Siemens STL ist a programming language for machine controllers. It is
oriented towards Boolean operations and extended for integer and real
data types. Symbolic addressing is almost completely absent.

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:19 PM, Charles Dickman  wrote:
> Does anyone here even know what Siemens STL is?
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Charles Dickman  wrote:
>>

Re: dataflow

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 04/11/2017 06:24 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk wrote:

> 
> I was not aware that there had been any out of order implementations 
> after the IBM ACS until the second half of the 1990s. Given Cray's 
> passion for simplicity, I would not expect any of his designs to use 
> o-o-o (specially one as early as the CDC 6600).

Study the architecture sometime--instructions were *issued* in  order,
but sent to different functional units with differing execution times.
Since there were two increment units (which handled loads and stores),
the legendary "store out of order" problem had already showed its ugly
face--in 1964.

Really, nihil sub sole novum in much of this field.

--Chuck

dataflow (was: RTX-2000 processor PC/AT add-in card (any takers?))

[Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk]

Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote on Tue, 11 Apr 2017 18:05:01 -0700
> On 04/11/2017 04:53 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk wrote:
> 
> > I consider the heart of any modern high performance CPU to be a
> > dataflow architecture (described as an "out of order execution
> > engine") with a hardware to translate the macrocode (CISC or RISC) to
> > the dataflow graph and tokens on the fly.
> I wouldn't characterize an out-of-order execution scheduler as
> "dataflow", at least not in the traditional sense.

I have never seen anybody else, including people whose research in the
late 1980s was dataflow architectures, do so either. But I see an engine
with 24 "in flight" instructions plus all the register renaming circuits
and it sure looks the same to me.

> Certainly, nobody that I was aware of ever categorized, say, a CDC 6600
> as a dataflow machine.

I was not aware that there had been any out of order implementations
after the IBM ACS until the second half of the 1990s. Given Cray's
passion for simplicity, I would not expect any of his designs to use
o-o-o (specially one as early as the CDC 6600).

> At least not in the same sense that I'd categorize a NEC uPD7281 as a
> dataflow device.

That is the one I am most familiar with, along with the Manchester
Dataflow Machine and the MIT Tagged Token machine. An interesting modern
dataflow architecture is the TRIPS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_architecture

-- Jecel

Re: Does anyone here know Siemens STL?

[Charles Dickman via cctalk]

Does anyone here even know what Siemens STL is?


On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Charles Dickman  wrote:
>

Re: RTX-2000 processor PC/AT add-in card (any takers?)

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 04/11/2017 04:53 PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk wrote:

> I consider the heart of any modern high performance CPU to be a
> dataflow architecture (described as an "out of order execution
> engine") with a hardware to translate the macrocode (CISC or RISC) to
> the dataflow graph and tokens on the fly.
I wouldn't characterize an out-of-order execution scheduler as
"dataflow", at least not in the traditional sense.

Certainly, nobody that I was aware of ever categorized, say, a CDC 6600
as a dataflow machine.

At least not in the same sense that I'd categorize a NEC uPD7281 as a
dataflow device.

--Chuck

Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?

[John Wilson via cctalk]

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 08:38:22PM -0400, Charles Dickman via cctalk wrote:
>Subject: If C is so evil why is it so successful?

Seriously, I think the #1 reason is that K was fantasically well-written.
If you barely skim that book, you know C.

It's *almost* a good low(-ish)-level language, but unfortunately it's the
wrong kind of low-level:  it's designed mainly to be easy to compile, but
access to bits and bytes is much more fiddly than it needs to be.  It would
have been nice if it had stolen FORTRAN-77's idea of declaring a variable
in the size that you want (I'm talking about INTEGER*2 vs. INTEGER*4 etc.),
instead of just "knowing" what the difference is between int and long and
maybe long long on some architectures and using limits.h plus enough #ifs
to probably, usually, get the size you meant.

That plus the ability to specify endianness of variables, at least as
an option (and also bit order for bit fields -- justifiably rarely used
because we just can't trust them) would have made it a much better fit
for the kinds of stuff it's so often used for (like touching on-disk
structures or or device registers or stuff sent over the network w/o ending
up in a ridiculous talk vs. ntalk situation).  But instead it's just so
lazy ... the compiler barely does anything, and even when you're *trying*
to write portable code, you often fail w/o realizing it, and if it's not
portable then it might as well be assembly and get the benefits that come
with that.

It's still better than lots of other languages.  It's just not nearly as
good at what it's *for* as it would have been with a bit more effort.

John Wilson
D Bit

Does anyone here know Siemens STL?

[Charles Dickman via cctalk]

Re: RTX-2000 processor PC/AT add-in card (any takers?)

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 04/11/2017 04:47 PM, Eric Smith wrote:

> Apparently there was little concern for either Fortran or COBOL, the 
> most widely used programming languages at the time.


So FORTRAN/Fortran and COBOL are still with us and the 432 is dust.
There's a lesson there somewhere...

--Chuck

Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?

[Toby Thain via cctalk]

On 2017-04-11 8:38 PM, Charles Dickman via cctalk wrote:





Google "worse is better". Richard P. Gabriel's phrase, I think.

--T

Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

Because "evil" and "successful" are not mutually exclusive.

RE: If C is so evil why is it so successful?

[Jay West via cctalk]

I would suggest that the premise (“C is so evil”) of your question (“why is {C} 
so successful?”) is incorrect.

 

No C is not evil, yes it is wildly successful.

 

Now the ++ in C++…. THAT is evil ;)

 

J

From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Charles 
Dickman via cctalk
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 7:38 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts 
Subject: If C is so evil why is it so successful?

 

 

Re: If C is so evil why is it so successful?

[Zane Healy via cctalk]

> On Apr 11, 2017, at 5:38 PM, Charles Dickman via cctalk 
>  wrote:
> 
> 

Because people are too lazy to use Ada.  

Zane

If C is so evil why is it so successful?

[Charles Dickman via cctalk]

Re: IBM AS400 questions

[devin davison via cctalk]

I looked up some of the scsi card specs and it is compatible, connected and
working good. I actually picked up two of the same tape drive, so that
should be a good backup in case one should fail. I am doing a complete
system backup now.

--Devin

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Paul Berger  wrote:

> Devin,
>
> The 7208-222 is a high voltage differential device you will likely need a
> tape IOP for that.  Earlier you indicated that there was a SCSI like
> connector on the back, was that on a PCI card?  If so is there a 4 digit
> number on the back of the card?
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
> On 2017-04-11 6:57 PM, devin davison via cctalk wrote:
>
>>   I picked up a IBM 7208 222 8mm drive today. I got a bunch of tapes with
>> it. Going to wire it up and power up the machine. Do I need to do any
>> special config or commandsto make the drive available, or will it just
>> show
>> up as tap02?
>>
>> I want to perform a complete system backup, is there any way to find how
>> big that will be so i can predict how many tapes I will need? How about
>> just listing files on the system and see how much space is taken up. I
>> have
>> not been able to figure out how to list files yet...
>>
>> Slow going, but progress. Thankful this drive and tapes were still there
>> at
>> the scrapyard.
>>
>> --Devin
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Mazzini Alessandro 
>> wrote:
>>
>>  From an experience with an older model ( so it may not be significant ,
>>> I've just a 9401-p03 ), the only way to know if it likes another scsi
>>> tape
>>> unit is to try it... one may be liked and another no, depending on the
>>> tape
>>> firmware. Same consideration goes for booting from such tape drive.
>>>
>>> -Messaggio originale-
>>> Da: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] Per conto di devin
>>> davison via cctalk
>>> Inviato: martedì 11 aprile 2017 05:13
>>> A: Pontus Pihlgren
>>> Cc: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts; General Discussion:
>>> On-Topic Posts
>>> Oggetto: Re: IBM AS400 questions
>>>
>>> Made some progress with the AS400. Looks like one of the hard drives has
>>> failed, it stated that if another disk fails then there could be a loss
>>> of
>>> data.
>>>
>>> Plan was to back up the system to a couple of 8GB QIC tapes, however
>>> looking at my tapes they turned out to be only QIC525 MB tapes, and are
>>> not
>>> enough to back up the entire machine.  Shopping around, i am not seeing
>>> 8GB
>>> tapes for less than $40, which is kinda costly. I do not know how to
>>> determine the total size of files on the system, or how many tapes the
>>> completed backup will be. There is a scsi port on the back of the
>>> machine.
>>> If i pick up an ibm branded drive, can i connect just any ibm branded
>>> tape
>>> drive, or do i need a specific model? I recall seeing a 8MM drive at the
>>> place where i got it , and possibly an external dat drive as well. I have
>>> plenty of dat tapes, I am trying to get a drive where the media has a
>>> higher capacity / lower cost.
>>>
>>> I read that there is a printer port on the back of my Infowindow II
>>> terminal, do i need a special ibm printer? if not, i have a good dot
>>> matrix
>>> printer here with a box of paper that should do the job.
>>>
>>> Leaving it powered down after tonight until i can make a complete save.
>>> Thanks to all for the advice so far. Really steep learning curve but
>>> quite
>>> an interesting machine.
>>>
>>> --Devin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Pontus Pihlgren 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Devin

 Have you subscribed to MIDRANGE-L ? http://lists.midrange.com/

 They might help you out. Also, if you would document your findings I
 would be very greatful. I have a model 170 on my todo-list.

 /P

 On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 12:21:17PM -0400, devin davison via cctalk
 wrote:

> Alright, it was quite a while back that I picked up my ibm AS400
> model
>
 170.

> I had asked some questions on the list, it was locked with a
> password
>
 and i

> could not get into the machine. I finally got around to getting into
> the machine and am at the main menu. Before i do anything, I want to
> back up the machine. I have a couple of tapes.
>
> I am not familiar with os/400 at all, the intention is to backup the
> machine so in the event of a hardware failure I will be able to
> reinstall and still have a licenced install.
>
> I come from the sgi land, usually from the prom there is the HINV
> command to give a nice hardware inventory of the machine, is there a
> similar command in the ibm world? I want to find what options are
> installed, cpu and memory details, etc.
>
> Any advice on what to do from here is much appreciated. I just want
> to
>
 get

> the thing backed up and rest assured that if the drives fail i can
> 

Re: C (was: The iAPX 432 and block languages)

[Fred Cisin via cctalk]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2017, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk wrote:

These are all very good points. I agree I was exagerating by saying the
iAPX432 and 8086 couldn't run C.


Or were you implying that nothing worthwhile has ever been written for 
80x86 (in ANY language?)?   That would be harder to argue with.


C's greatest weakness, and C's greatest strength, is that it lets you do 
things that you shouldn't.  (Such as putting a pointer into an int, etc.)


As Holub titled one of his books, C gives you "enough rope to shoot 
yourself in the foot".



If you stick to only doing things "the way that you are supposed to", then 
C code is actually pretty portable.  But what's the fun in THAT?


You have to take full responsibility for what you do with C.
It is YOUR responsibility to decide what casts are safe to do.
It is YOUR responsibility to put in all runtime error checking -
if you don't check every denominator for a zero value, then any
resulting black holes are YOUR responsibility.

If you are sure that nothing can ever be out of range, then you can save 
object code by not putting in runtime error checking.
The problem is, of course, that too many people are "sure", that shouldn't 
be.  Hence, you get an amazing amount of software that can never be truly 
reliable.
For example, if you know for sure that no file will ever be larger than 
2GB, then you can get away with using a signed 32 bit "long" int for file 
size, or simply printf("%ld", FILESIZE) for displaying it.  (Try using a 
sector editor (such as DEBUG) and changing the last 4 bytes of a DOS 
Directory entry to  h.)



I am, of course, embarrassed by the quality of most of the code that I 
have ever written.



--
Grumpy Ol' Fred ci...@xenosoft.com

Re: RTX-2000 processor PC/AT add-in card (any takers?)

[Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk]

Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote on Tue, 11 Apr 2017 10:18:00 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Sean Conner
> 
> > I really think it's for *this* reason (the handler() example) that C
> > doesn't allow nested functions.
> 
> I wouldn't be sure of that; I would tend to think that nested functions were
> left out simply because they add complexity, and didn't add enough value to
> outweigh that complexity. (In ~40 years of programming in C, I have never
> missed them.)

When block based languages evolved into modular languages (Ada,
Modula-2) they added a system with two levels: public and private
declarations. C got the same job done with its header files and separate
compilation and eventually was able to enforce that with "static"
function declarations.

If you have these two levels you will rarely (if ever) need extra ones.

-- Jecel

Re: RTX-2000 processor PC/AT add-in card (any takers?)

[Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk]

Chuck Guzis via cctalk wrote on Tue, 11 Apr 2017 09:37:27 -0700
> On 04/10/2017 02:23 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> 
> > When the 432 project (originally 8800) started, there weren't many
> > people predicting that C (and its derivatives) would take over the world.
> 
> That's the danger of a too-aggressive CISC, isn't it?  I suppose that
> it's safe to say that if you look under the hood of any modern CPU,
> there's a RISC machine in there somewhere.

I consider the heart of any modern high performance CPU to be a dataflow
architecture (described as an   "out of order execution engine") with a
hardware to translate the macrocode (CISC or RISC) to the dataflow graph
and tokens on the fly.

-- Jecel

Re: remember xvscan?

[Eric Smith via cctalk]

On Apr 11, 2017 5:29 AM, "E. Groenenberg via cctalk" 
wrote:
> Wasn't that not an add-on to 'xv' (xv-3.10a)?

xvscan was based on xv but was sold including xv, with the xvscan price
including the cost of an xv license.

Re: RTX-2000 processor PC/AT add-in card (any takers?)

[Eric Smith via cctalk]

On Apr 11, 2017 11:29 AM, "Chuck Guzis via cctalk" 
wrote:
> This has me wondering about how the 432 people implemented FORTRAN.

Oh, there's a very simple answer to that. They didn't!

Early in the 8800/432 development (which started in 1975), Intel was
developing their own language for it, generally in the Algol family. It's
possible that they intended to support other languages, but Fortran
definitely would have been a poor fit.

When Ada came along, they decided that it was a reasonably good fit, and
with the DoD pushing Ada, that would be an easier sell to customers than a
proprietary language. Intel marketing basically claimed that the 432 was
designed for Ada, though that wasn't really the case.

The only two programming languages Intel supported on the 432 were:

1) Ada, using a cross-compiler written in Pascal and hosted on a VAX, to
run on "real" 432 systems such as the 432/670

2) Object Programming Language (OPL), a Smalltalk dialect based on Rosetta
Smalltalk, which only ran on the 432/100 demo board, a Multibus board
inserted in a slot of an Intel MDS decelopment system.

Late in the 432 timeline there was an unsupported port of XPL, but it did
not generate native code.

Apparently there was little concern for either Fortran or COBOL, the most
widely used programming languages at the time.

Re: C (was: The iAPX 432 and block languages)

[Sean Conner via cctalk]

It was thus said that the Great Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk once stated:
> Sean Conner wrote two great posts on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:43:29 -0400
> 
> These are all very good points. I agree I was exagerating by saying the
> iAPX432 and 8086 couldn't run C. After all, the language was born on the
> PDP-11 and that was limited to either 64KB or 128KB. So any C programs
> for that machine could be trivially recompiled to run on either Intel
> processor. But I certainly wouldn't want to port the C version of Spice
> to DOS, for example (I was given the job of porting the Fortran version
> of Spice from the PDP-11 to the Burroughs B6900 and can tell you that
> tales of Fortran's compatiblity are greatly exagerated, but that is
> another story).

  I can relate.  I have the code to Viola [1] and it no longer compiles
cleanly [2].  I have cleaned up the code enough to get it to produce an
executable, but man ... the code ... it *barely* runs on a 32-bit system and
immeidately crashes on a 64-bit system, mainly due to the deeply baked in
assumption that 

sizeof(int) == sizeof(long) == sizeof(char *) == sizeof(void *)

which is not always the case (even C says as much).  But it was written in a
time of flux, just after C was standardized and not everyone had an ANSI-C
compiler.

> The reason I used [bp-2] instead of [bp] in my second example is that I
> supposed the latter was for the dynamic links (pointer to who called us)
> so I needed the static link (pointer to who defined us) to be somewhere
> else. I did not bother trying to remember how the ENTER and LEAVE
> instructions work so my examples probably are not compatible with them:
> 
> https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2012/readings/i386/ENTER.htm

  Yeah, I recently wrote code that used ENTER (works on both 32-bit and
64-bit x86 CPUs) just to figure out how it works.  I never found the
description clear and NONE of the examples actually used it for nested stack
frames (sigh).

  -spc

[1] http://www.viola.org/

[2] Conflicting types for malloc() and fprintf(), and use of an
obsolete header.

C (was: The iAPX 432 and block languages)

[Jecel Assumpcao Jr. via cctalk]

Sean Conner wrote two great posts on Mon, 10 Apr 2017 21:43:29 -0400

These are all very good points. I agree I was exagerating by saying the
iAPX432 and 8086 couldn't run C. After all, the language was born on the
PDP-11 and that was limited to either 64KB or 128KB. So any C programs
for that machine could be trivially recompiled to run on either Intel
processor. But I certainly wouldn't want to port the C version of Spice
to DOS, for example (I was given the job of porting the Fortran version
of Spice from the PDP-11 to the Burroughs B6900 and can tell you that
tales of Fortran's compatiblity are greatly exagerated, but that is
another story). I also used QNX C which had some odd notation I have
forgotten which allowed you to have pointers using the extra segment
instead of the data segment. It was something like @cp instead of *cp.

The reason I used [bp-2] instead of [bp] in my second example is that I
supposed the latter was for the dynamic links (pointer to who called us)
so I needed the static link (pointer to who defined us) to be somewhere
else. I did not bother trying to remember how the ENTER and LEAVE
instructions work so my examples probably are not compatible with them:

https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2012/readings/i386/ENTER.htm

My list should have included processors designed to run C. I won't put
RISC architectures there though they were heavily influenced by studying
the output of C compilers since they explicitly rejected the trend to
"close the semantic gap".

C: C-Machine, CRISP (Hobbit), ZPU

The machines don't bother with a base pointer (frame pointer in the case
of the 68000) register since C compilers can work without them.

-- Jecel

Re: IBM AS400 questions

[Paul Berger via cctalk]

Devin,

The 7208-222 is a high voltage differential device you will likely need 
a tape IOP for that.  Earlier you indicated that there was a SCSI like 
connector on the back, was that on a PCI card?  If so is there a 4 digit 
number on the back of the card?


Paul.


On 2017-04-11 6:57 PM, devin davison via cctalk wrote:

  I picked up a IBM 7208 222 8mm drive today. I got a bunch of tapes with
it. Going to wire it up and power up the machine. Do I need to do any
special config or commandsto make the drive available, or will it just show
up as tap02?

I want to perform a complete system backup, is there any way to find how
big that will be so i can predict how many tapes I will need? How about
just listing files on the system and see how much space is taken up. I have
not been able to figure out how to list files yet...

Slow going, but progress. Thankful this drive and tapes were still there at
the scrapyard.

--Devin

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Mazzini Alessandro  wrote:


 From an experience with an older model ( so it may not be significant ,
I've just a 9401-p03 ), the only way to know if it likes another scsi tape
unit is to try it... one may be liked and another no, depending on the tape
firmware. Same consideration goes for booting from such tape drive.

-Messaggio originale-
Da: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] Per conto di devin
davison via cctalk
Inviato: martedì 11 aprile 2017 05:13
A: Pontus Pihlgren
Cc: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts; General Discussion:
On-Topic Posts
Oggetto: Re: IBM AS400 questions

Made some progress with the AS400. Looks like one of the hard drives has
failed, it stated that if another disk fails then there could be a loss of
data.

Plan was to back up the system to a couple of 8GB QIC tapes, however
looking at my tapes they turned out to be only QIC525 MB tapes, and are not
enough to back up the entire machine.  Shopping around, i am not seeing 8GB
tapes for less than $40, which is kinda costly. I do not know how to
determine the total size of files on the system, or how many tapes the
completed backup will be. There is a scsi port on the back of the machine.
If i pick up an ibm branded drive, can i connect just any ibm branded tape
drive, or do i need a specific model? I recall seeing a 8MM drive at the
place where i got it , and possibly an external dat drive as well. I have
plenty of dat tapes, I am trying to get a drive where the media has a
higher capacity / lower cost.

I read that there is a printer port on the back of my Infowindow II
terminal, do i need a special ibm printer? if not, i have a good dot matrix
printer here with a box of paper that should do the job.

Leaving it powered down after tonight until i can make a complete save.
Thanks to all for the advice so far. Really steep learning curve but quite
an interesting machine.

--Devin



On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Pontus Pihlgren 
wrote:


Hi Devin

Have you subscribed to MIDRANGE-L ? http://lists.midrange.com/

They might help you out. Also, if you would document your findings I
would be very greatful. I have a model 170 on my todo-list.

/P

On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 12:21:17PM -0400, devin davison via cctalk wrote:

Alright, it was quite a while back that I picked up my ibm AS400
model

170.

I had asked some questions on the list, it was locked with a
password

and i

could not get into the machine. I finally got around to getting into
the machine and am at the main menu. Before i do anything, I want to
back up the machine. I have a couple of tapes.

I am not familiar with os/400 at all, the intention is to backup the
machine so in the event of a hardware failure I will be able to
reinstall and still have a licenced install.

I come from the sgi land, usually from the prom there is the HINV
command to give a nice hardware inventory of the machine, is there a
similar command in the ibm world? I want to find what options are
installed, cpu and memory details, etc.

Any advice on what to do from here is much appreciated. I just want
to

get

the thing backed up and rest assured that if the drives fail i can
reinstall the os and it have its license.

--Devin



On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Mazzini Alessandro  wrote:


 From an experience with an older model ( so it may not be significant ,
I've just a 9401-p03 ), the only way to know if it likes another scsi tape
unit is to try it... one may be liked and another no, depending on the tape
firmware. Same consideration goes for booting from such tape drive.

-Messaggio originale-
Da: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] Per conto di devin
davison via cctalk
Inviato: martedì 11 aprile 2017 05:13
A: Pontus Pihlgren
Cc: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts; General Discussion:
On-Topic Posts
Oggetto: Re: IBM AS400 questions

Made some progress with the AS400. Looks like one of the hard drives has
failed, it stated that if 

Re: IBM AS400 questions

[devin davison via cctalk]

 I picked up a IBM 7208 222 8mm drive today. I got a bunch of tapes with
it. Going to wire it up and power up the machine. Do I need to do any
special config or commandsto make the drive available, or will it just show
up as tap02?

I want to perform a complete system backup, is there any way to find how
big that will be so i can predict how many tapes I will need? How about
just listing files on the system and see how much space is taken up. I have
not been able to figure out how to list files yet...

Slow going, but progress. Thankful this drive and tapes were still there at
the scrapyard.

--Devin

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Mazzini Alessandro  wrote:

> From an experience with an older model ( so it may not be significant ,
> I've just a 9401-p03 ), the only way to know if it likes another scsi tape
> unit is to try it... one may be liked and another no, depending on the tape
> firmware. Same consideration goes for booting from such tape drive.
>
> -Messaggio originale-
> Da: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] Per conto di devin
> davison via cctalk
> Inviato: martedì 11 aprile 2017 05:13
> A: Pontus Pihlgren
> Cc: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts; General Discussion:
> On-Topic Posts
> Oggetto: Re: IBM AS400 questions
>
> Made some progress with the AS400. Looks like one of the hard drives has
> failed, it stated that if another disk fails then there could be a loss of
> data.
>
> Plan was to back up the system to a couple of 8GB QIC tapes, however
> looking at my tapes they turned out to be only QIC525 MB tapes, and are not
> enough to back up the entire machine.  Shopping around, i am not seeing 8GB
> tapes for less than $40, which is kinda costly. I do not know how to
> determine the total size of files on the system, or how many tapes the
> completed backup will be. There is a scsi port on the back of the machine.
> If i pick up an ibm branded drive, can i connect just any ibm branded tape
> drive, or do i need a specific model? I recall seeing a 8MM drive at the
> place where i got it , and possibly an external dat drive as well. I have
> plenty of dat tapes, I am trying to get a drive where the media has a
> higher capacity / lower cost.
>
> I read that there is a printer port on the back of my Infowindow II
> terminal, do i need a special ibm printer? if not, i have a good dot matrix
> printer here with a box of paper that should do the job.
>
> Leaving it powered down after tonight until i can make a complete save.
> Thanks to all for the advice so far. Really steep learning curve but quite
> an interesting machine.
>
> --Devin
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Pontus Pihlgren 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Devin
> >
> > Have you subscribed to MIDRANGE-L ? http://lists.midrange.com/
> >
> > They might help you out. Also, if you would document your findings I
> > would be very greatful. I have a model 170 on my todo-list.
> >
> > /P
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 12:21:17PM -0400, devin davison via cctalk wrote:
> > > Alright, it was quite a while back that I picked up my ibm AS400
> > > model
> > 170.
> > > I had asked some questions on the list, it was locked with a
> > > password
> > and i
> > > could not get into the machine. I finally got around to getting into
> > > the machine and am at the main menu. Before i do anything, I want to
> > > back up the machine. I have a couple of tapes.
> > >
> > > I am not familiar with os/400 at all, the intention is to backup the
> > > machine so in the event of a hardware failure I will be able to
> > > reinstall and still have a licenced install.
> > >
> > > I come from the sgi land, usually from the prom there is the HINV
> > > command to give a nice hardware inventory of the machine, is there a
> > > similar command in the ibm world? I want to find what options are
> > > installed, cpu and memory details, etc.
> > >
> > > Any advice on what to do from here is much appreciated. I just want
> > > to
> > get
> > > the thing backed up and rest assured that if the drives fail i can
> > > reinstall the os and it have its license.
> > >
> > > --Devin
> >
>
>

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 6:20 AM, Mazzini Alessandro  wrote:

> From an experience with an older model ( so it may not be significant ,
> I've just a 9401-p03 ), the only way to know if it likes another scsi tape
> unit is to try it... one may be liked and another no, depending on the tape
> firmware. Same consideration goes for booting from such tape drive.
>
> -Messaggio originale-
> Da: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] Per conto di devin
> davison via cctalk
> Inviato: martedì 11 aprile 2017 05:13
> A: Pontus Pihlgren
> Cc: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts; General Discussion:
> On-Topic Posts
> Oggetto: Re: IBM AS400 questions
>
> Made some progress with the AS400. Looks like one of the hard drives has
> failed, it stated that if another disk fails then there could be a 

Re: The iAPX 432 and block languages (was Re: RTX-2000 processor PC/AT add-in card (any takers?))

[sieler_allegro via cctalk]

Eric writes:

The 432 architects went on to design a RISC processor that eliminated most
of the drawbacks of the 432, but still supported object-oriented
addressing, type safety, and memory safety, but using 33-bit word with one
bit being the tag to differentiate Access Descriptors from data. This
became the BiiN machine, which was unsuccessful.

And we come full circle.  One of the BiiN designers, John VanZandt (may have 
been from Intel)
cut his teeth on the Burrough B6700 at UCSD (tags, descriptors, stack),
and was one of the original implementors of UCSD Pascal.
At school, he roomed with a FORTH/LISP/APL implementor (me).

Small world, sometimes :)

Stan

Re: RTX-2000 processor PC/AT add-in card (any takers?)

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 04/11/2017 10:05 AM, Paul Koning wrote:

> 
> Back then it would have seemed a reasonable assumption that high
> level, strongly typed, languages would continue to flourish.  If you
> assume Algol or Pascal or Ada, a machine like the 432 (or like the
> Burroughs 5500 and its descendants) makes perfect sense.

This has me wondering about how the 432 people implemented FORTRAN.
Between parameter-passing-by-reference, EQUIVALENCE and COMMON, one can
be pretty cavalier about data types and addressing.   Yet most FORTRANs
of the time did not implement pointers.

--Chuck

Re: RTX-2000 processor PC/AT add-in card (any takers?)

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Apr 11, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On 04/10/2017 02:23 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> 
>> When the 432 project (originally 8800) started, there weren't many
>> people predicting that C (and its derivatives) would take over the world.
> 
> That's the danger of a too-aggressive CISC, isn't it?  I suppose that
> it's safe to say that if you look under the hood of any modern CPU,
> there's a RISC machine in there somewhere.

Back then it would have seemed a reasonable assumption that high level, 
strongly typed, languages would continue to flourish.  If you assume Algol or 
Pascal or Ada, a machine like the 432 (or like the Burroughs 5500 and its 
descendants) makes perfect sense.

I don't think this is exactly a question of RISC vs. CISC, but rather a 
question of how you believe addressing is done.  For example, the EL-X8 is a 
one address machine with a regular instruction layout, which makes it somewhat 
RISC like in structure.  But it has addressing modes clearly designed for 
efficient handling of block structured recursive languages like Algol.

paul

Re: RTX-2000 processor PC/AT add-in card (any takers?)

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 04/10/2017 02:23 PM, Eric Smith wrote:

> When the 432 project (originally 8800) started, there weren't many
> people predicting that C (and its derivatives) would take over the world.

That's the danger of a too-aggressive CISC, isn't it?  I suppose that
it's safe to say that if you look under the hood of any modern CPU,
there's a RISC machine in there somewhere.

--Chuck

Re: RTX-2000 processor PC/AT add-in card (any takers?)

[Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk]

> On Apr 10, 2017, at 11:18 PM, Lars Brinkhoff via cctalk 
>  wrote:
> 
> Chuck Guzis wrote:
>> That is a bit of a surprise--in my experience it takes very little
>> code to support Forth on any processor--that someone would build a
>> dedicated chip for it is unusual.
> 
> There are actually quite a few Forth processors.  Charles Moore himself
> designed half a dozen or so.  The RTX-2000 series is a descentant of his
> Novix chip.  Check out GreenArrays for his latest work.
> 
> There are also some FPGA designs out there.  The J1 seems somewhat
> popular.

Yes, I’m using the J1 in some my projects.  I even wrote a J1 emulator
(in Forth of course) but it has some limitations.  I’m in the process
of re-writing it in C so I can do some multi-threaded stuff and better
simulate asynchronous I/O.

TTFN - Guy

Re: RTX-2000 processor PC/AT add-in card (any takers?)

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Sean Conner

> I really think it's for *this* reason (the handler() example) that C
> doesn't allow nested functions.

I wouldn't be sure of that; I would tend to think that nested functions were
left out simply because they add complexity, and didn't add enough value to
outweigh that complexity. (In ~40 years of programming in C, I have never
missed them.)

C seems (well, until the standards committees got ahold of it) to have added
things as a demonstrated need was felt for them (see DMR's evolution of C
paper), and maybe they just never found a need for nested function
definitions?

I suspect that Ken probably knows; he's not (AFAIK) on the Unix History list
(TUHS), but several of his early co-workers (including Stephen Johnson, who
did PCC) are, and could relay a question to him, if it were asked over there
(if we really want to know).

Noel

Re: RTX-2000 processor PC/AT add-in card (any takers?)

[Tapley, Mark via cctalk]

Two of them went past Pluto in 2015, inside the LORRI and PEPSSI 
instruments on New Horizons, running (of course) flight software in FORTH. At 
least one more was aboard MESSENGER at Mercury, in the MASCS instrument.
That is a processor architecture with legs… :-)
See pp. 17 of:

http://www.boulder.swri.edu/pkb/ssr/ssr-lorri.pdf

- Mark
210-522-6025 office 
210-379-4635cell

On Apr 10, 2017, at 6:54 PM, dwight via cctalk  wrote:

> Harris made the RTX-2000 in a rad hardened form so they were commonly used 
> for satellites.

Re: remember xvscan?

[E. Groenenberg via cctalk]

On Tue, April 11, 2017 12:44, David Griffith via cctalk wrote:
>
> Does anyone remember using xvscan?  Does anyone know how to get a hold of
> it anymore?
>
> --
> David Griffith
> d...@661.org
>
> A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
> A: Top-posting.
> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>

Wasn't that not an add-on to 'xv' (xv-3.10a)?

Ed
--
Ik email, dus ik besta.
BTC : 1Lk6141nvDKPxtCa5erfFyovsoJN2LKqNJ

Re: The iAPX 432 and block languages (was Re: RTX-2000 processor PC/AT add-in card (any takers?))

[Eric Smith via cctalk]

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Sean Conner  wrote:

>   What about C made it difficult for the [Intel iAPX] 432 to run?
>

The iAPX 432 was a capability based architecture; the only kind of pointer
supported by the hardware was an Access Descriptor, which is a pointer to
an object (or a refinement, which is a subset of an object).  There is no
efficient way to do any kind of pointer arithmetic, even with refinements.

In the Release 1 and 2 architectures, objects were either Access Objects,
which could contain Access Descriptors (pointers to objects), or Data
Objects, whcih could NOT contain Access Descriptors. As a result,
architectural objects were often used in pairs, with the Access Object
having an Access Descriptor at a specific offset (generally 0) pointing to
the corresponding Data Object.

In the Release 3 architecture, a single object could have both an Access
Part and a Data Part, with basically the same restriction: the Access Part
can only store Access Descriptors, and the Data Part can NOT store Access
Descriptors.

As a consequence, a C pointer to a structure containing both pointer and
non-pointer data would have to be represented as a composite of:
   1)  an Access Descriptor to the containing object
   2)  an offset into the data object or data part, for the non-pointer
data, and the non-Access-Descriptor portion of any pointers
   3)  an offset into the access object or access part, for the Access
Descriptor portion of any pointers
The architecture provides no assistance for managing this sort of pointer;
the compiler would just have to emit all the necessary code.

However, C requires that it be possible to cast other data types into
pointers. The 432 can easily enough let you read an access descriptor as
data, but it will not allow you to write data to an access descriptor. That
will raise an exception. It would take really awful hacks in the operating
system to subvert that, and would be insanely slow. (On a machine that was
already quite slow under normal conditions.)  You can't even cast an Access
Descriptor (which occupies 32 bits of memory) to uint32_t, then cast it
back unmodified, e.g., to store a pointer into an intptr_t then put it back
in a pointer.

It would almost certainly be more efficient to implement C on the 432 by
simply allocating a single large array of bytes as the memory for the C
world, and implementing pointers only as offsets within that C world.  This
would preclude all access from C code to normal 432 objects, except by
calling native libraries through hand-written glue. It would effectively be
halfway to an abstract C machine; the compiler could emit a subset of
normal 432 machine instructions that operate on the data.

Note that the 432 segment size is limited to 64KB. Accessing an array
larger than that, such as the proposed C world, is expensive. You have to
have an array of access descriptors to data objects of 64KB (or some other
power of 2) each. Release 1 and 2 provide no architectural support for it,
so the machine code would have to take C virtual addresses and split them
into the object index and offset.  Release 3 provides an instruction for
indexing a large array in this fashion; IIRC the individual data objects
comprising the array are 2KB each.

  -spc (Curious here, as some aspects of the 432 made their way to the 286
> and we all know what happened to that architecture ... )
>

The only siginificant aspect of the 432 that made it into the 286 was the
use of 64KB segments, and that had already been done (badly) in the 8086.

The 432 architects went on to design a RISC processor that eliminated most
of the drawbacks of the 432, but still supported object-oriented
addressing, type safety, and memory safety, but using 33-bit word with one
bit being the tag to differentiate Access Descriptors from data. This
became the BiiN machine, which was unsuccessful. With the tag bit and
object-oriented instructions removed, it became the i960; the tag bit and
object-oriented instructions were later offered as the i960MX. The military
used the i960MX, but it is unclear whether they actually made use of the
tagging.

Eric

remember xvscan?

[David Griffith via cctalk]

Does anyone remember using xvscan?  Does anyone know how to get a hold of 
it anymore?


--
David Griffith
d...@661.org

A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

R: IBM AS400 questions

[Mazzini Alessandro via cctalk]

>From an experience with an older model ( so it may not be significant , I've 
>just a 9401-p03 ), the only way to know if it likes another scsi tape unit is 
>to try it... one may be liked and another no, depending on the tape firmware. 
>Same consideration goes for booting from such tape drive.

-Messaggio originale-
Da: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] Per conto di devin davison 
via cctalk
Inviato: martedì 11 aprile 2017 05:13
A: Pontus Pihlgren
Cc: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts; General Discussion: 
On-Topic Posts
Oggetto: Re: IBM AS400 questions

Made some progress with the AS400. Looks like one of the hard drives has 
failed, it stated that if another disk fails then there could be a loss of data.

Plan was to back up the system to a couple of 8GB QIC tapes, however looking at 
my tapes they turned out to be only QIC525 MB tapes, and are not enough to back 
up the entire machine.  Shopping around, i am not seeing 8GB tapes for less 
than $40, which is kinda costly. I do not know how to determine the total size 
of files on the system, or how many tapes the completed backup will be. There 
is a scsi port on the back of the machine.
If i pick up an ibm branded drive, can i connect just any ibm branded tape 
drive, or do i need a specific model? I recall seeing a 8MM drive at the place 
where i got it , and possibly an external dat drive as well. I have plenty of 
dat tapes, I am trying to get a drive where the media has a higher capacity / 
lower cost.

I read that there is a printer port on the back of my Infowindow II terminal, 
do i need a special ibm printer? if not, i have a good dot matrix printer here 
with a box of paper that should do the job.

Leaving it powered down after tonight until i can make a complete save.
Thanks to all for the advice so far. Really steep learning curve but quite an 
interesting machine.

--Devin



On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Pontus Pihlgren 
wrote:

> Hi Devin
>
> Have you subscribed to MIDRANGE-L ? http://lists.midrange.com/
>
> They might help you out. Also, if you would document your findings I 
> would be very greatful. I have a model 170 on my todo-list.
>
> /P
>
> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 12:21:17PM -0400, devin davison via cctalk wrote:
> > Alright, it was quite a while back that I picked up my ibm AS400 
> > model
> 170.
> > I had asked some questions on the list, it was locked with a 
> > password
> and i
> > could not get into the machine. I finally got around to getting into 
> > the machine and am at the main menu. Before i do anything, I want to 
> > back up the machine. I have a couple of tapes.
> >
> > I am not familiar with os/400 at all, the intention is to backup the 
> > machine so in the event of a hardware failure I will be able to 
> > reinstall and still have a licenced install.
> >
> > I come from the sgi land, usually from the prom there is the HINV 
> > command to give a nice hardware inventory of the machine, is there a 
> > similar command in the ibm world? I want to find what options are 
> > installed, cpu and memory details, etc.
> >
> > Any advice on what to do from here is much appreciated. I just want 
> > to
> get
> > the thing backed up and rest assured that if the drives fail i can 
> > reinstall the os and it have its license.
> >
> > --Devin
>

Re: RTX-2000 processor PC/AT add-in card (any takers?)

[Lars Brinkhoff via cctalk]

Chuck Guzis wrote:
> That is a bit of a surprise--in my experience it takes very little
> code to support Forth on any processor--that someone would build a
> dedicated chip for it is unusual.

There are actually quite a few Forth processors.  Charles Moore himself
designed half a dozen or so.  The RTX-2000 series is a descentant of his
Novix chip.  Check out GreenArrays for his latest work.

There are also some FPGA designs out there.  The J1 seems somewhat
popular.