Thanks, Don. Good to know who wrote the tests!
Bitsavers has listings for 3 of the 5 11/60 FP tests, so I'm not sure
whether it's usable. I'll try the 11/34 version, as you suggested,
although I don't have paper tapes for that, just an XXDP pack (somewhere).
/Bob
On 3/25/2015 4:49 PM, Don North wrote:
On 3/25/2015 8:52 AM, Bob Supnik wrote:
I'm looking for suggestions on how to test the revised FP11
efficiently. I wrote it so long ago that all my hand tests have
vanished.
Bitsavers has a set of paper-tapes for the 11/60's FP unit, but no
listings.
XXDP FP diagnostics are "white box" tests, intended to check out the
logic paths of the actual implementation. I need "black box" tests
that work from the specification, without knowledge of the
implementation.
Thanks,
/Bob Supnik
_______________________________________________
Simh mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
Hi Bob long time,
The 11/60 FPU diagnostic listing are slightly mis-filed on bitsavers,
they are under the CPU directory:
http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/dec/pdp11/1160/
Rather than in the diagnostics directory as they are for the 11/34:
http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/dec/pdp11/xxdp/diag_listings/1134/
That being said, the diagnostics (I authored the 11/60 FPP diagnostics
a long time ago...) are by their nature
implementation and hardware specific, especially the 11/60 FP11-E
specific diagnostics. Some of the system
exerciser diagnostics take a bit more abstract architectural view, but
still are tuned to the specific hardware
implementations, as that is what manufacturing/field service wanted
(and they paid for the diagnostics).
It would have been nice to have architectural test suites for CPU,
FPU, MMU subsystems that would validate
that engineering did indeed build a new PDP-11 that behaved like all
other PDP-11s, but those were not tests
that existed back then (late 70s/early 80s when I was at DEC) but may
have come along later in the 80s/90s
with the advent of the F11/J11 silicon. I don't know about that, after
my time.
The CIS diagnostic test CZKEExx was a bit different; it really was a
white box test that only looked at the spec
and not the specific implementations. It had an instruction emulator
and compared expected results from
software simulation vs real hardware. It also built in a large number
of tabled test cases of known results.
Based on the diagnostics info available I would suggest that there is
more detailed documentation available
on the 11/34 FP11 implementation and diagnostic listing than those
that exist for the 11/60, so using the
11/34 as a baseline may be more productive.
Don North
_______________________________________________
Simh mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
