[Simh] PDP-8: The possibilities?

Johnny Billquist bqt at softjar.se
Thu Sep 8 23:01:04 EDT 2016


On 2016-09-09 04:40, Ray Jewhurst wrote:
> My source pertaining to the serial bus on the S being the basis for the
> Omnibus I got straight from the FAQ. To be more specific it pertained to
> the easy configurability of the 2 busses.

The FAQ isn't always right. :-)
I don't think it makes any sense at all to compare the 8/S with the 
Omnibus. I just did a quick check, and some controllers were usable both 
on the straight 8 and the 8/S, such as the PC02, PC03, CR03C, AA01A and 
probably others... So I would say that the straight 8 and 8/S was pretty 
much the same, as far as peripherals were concerned. And as far as I 
remember, these were pretty much the same on the 8/I as well. Check the 
manuals if you want more details. :-)

And I just found the difference in the OPR instruction for the 8/S 
compared to other models, that I had some vague memory of.
On the 8/S, the Increment AC bit cannot be combined with any rotates, 
since they are both done in the same clock cycle.
As far as I can remember, only the 8/S have this property, and on other 
models, it is a clearly defined sequence of the different OPR bits, with 
increment happening before rotates.

	Johnny

>
>
> On Sep 8, 2016 10:27 PM, "Johnny Billquist" <bqt at softjar.se
> <mailto:bqt at softjar.se>> wrote:
>
>     Bob, you are right in that the PDP-5 used address 0 for the PC, and
>     put the saved PC at address 1 at interrupts, which is not compatible
>     with the PDP-8, and means any interrupt driven code will not work
>     across the PDP-5 and PDP-8.
>
>     Not sure what you mean by 0/1 for interrupts. Maybe you mean that 0
>     is where the pre-interrupt PC is saved, and execution starts at 1?
>
>     Anyway... As far as the early PDP-8 models go, the 8/S is the odd
>     ball out. As far as I can remember, a bunch of OPR combinations did
>     not work the same (or at all) on the 8/S, compared to any other
>     PDP-8 model. So special care needs to be taken when you write
>     something for an 8/S. Apart from that, the machines are mostly
>     upward compatible, indeed. The Omnibus machines added a few new
>     things, but yes, you normally use various undocumented opcodes to
>     tell the machines apart. RAR RTR is the one I know the best, but
>     there are probably others too.
>
>     Kermit-12 is a good source if people want to check how to tell which
>     model it is running on, since that program does a pretty decent job
>     of identifying pretty much all machines.
>
>     Ray Jewhurst mentioned that the serial bus of the 8/S was the basis
>     for the Omnibus - that is backwards and wrong in several ways. First
>     of all, I'm not sure the bus was serial on the 8/S. The CPU was serial.
>     Second, the Omnibus is most definitely not serial, and I also
>     seriously doubt there are any relationship at all between the
>     Omnibus and anything on the 8/S. Third, I have some vague memory
>     that the Negibus was used on 8/S, but I should probably look that up.
>
>             Johnny
>
>
>
>     On 2016-09-09 03:53, Bob Supnik wrote:
>
>         The PDP-5 is, in fact, not all that compatible, because it used
>         memory
>         location 0 as the PC, pushing the interrupt locations to 1/2,
>         instead of
>         0/1. So any program requiring interrupts will not work on a -5
>         vs an -8.
>         The PDP-5 had an IO halt/restart facility, modeled on the PDP-1 and
>         dropped from the PDP-8, which allowed an IOT to "wait" for
>         completion
>         without looping and testing a flag. It does not seem to have
>         supported
>         an EAE or extended memory.
>
>         The PDP-8 family (8, 8/S, 8/I and variants, 8/E and variants,
>         8/A) are
>         superset compatible for defined operations. It's possible to
>         tell them
>         apart based on their behavior on undefined operations. The code for
>         identifying a PDP-8 is out there, but I don't have it at hand. I
>         remember that the behavior of RAL RAR and RTL RTR was one way of
>         telling
>         the 8, 8/S, and 8/I apart.
>
>         Most of the work for supporting models would be in the peripherals,
>         particularly the ones that are 'compatible' across the line (reader,
>         punch, terminals, clock). The pre-Omnibus machines used the
>         older style
>         IOP1, IOP2, IOP4 pulse methodology; the Omnibus machines can
>         decode all
>         8 possible combinations. Beyond that, peripherals tended to be
>         distinct:
>         the RK8 for the 8/I vs the RK8E for the Omnibus machines; the
>         Type 552
>         DECtape controller for the -5 and -8 vs the TC01/TC08 for the later
>         machines.
>
>         The "CMOS 8s" are a whole different kettle of fish. They were
>         only used
>         in word processing/DECmate systems and had many unique features.
>
>         /Bob
>
>         On 9/8/2016 9:10 PM, simh-request at trailing-edge.com
>         <mailto:simh-request at trailing-edge.com> wrote:
>
>             Message: 1
>             Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 18:57:52 -0400
>             From: Ray Jewhurst<raywjewhurst at gmail.com
>             <mailto:raywjewhurst at gmail.com>>
>             To: simh<simH at trailing-edge.com <mailto:simH at trailing-edge.com>>
>             Subject: [Simh] PDP-8: The possibilities?
>             Message-ID:
>
>             <CAMFEAABLe-s+qSZmm4AXyR8Pqhx3dPkiaDJb_aUXQo5hAHEt1g at mail.gmail.com
>             <mailto:CAMFEAABLe-s%2BqSZmm4AXyR8Pqhx3dPkiaDJb_aUXQo5hAHEt1g at mail.gmail.com>>
>             Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>             After both reading and participating in some recent
>             discussions, I got to
>             thinking that maybe the array of PDP-8 models could be better
>             represented.
>             I say this because from what I have read very early PDP-8
>             code is not
>             100%
>             compatible with later models conversely the PDP-5 is
>             compatible with the
>             early code and likewise uses a negibus like the Straight-8.
>             I thank this
>             could be a rewarding experience for some of us and since I
>             can't work I
>             would be able to help coordinate, write pseudo code and beta
>             test. If
>             anyone is interested in this let the discussion begin.
>
>             Thanks
>             Ray
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Simh mailing list
>         Simh at trailing-edge.com <mailto:Simh at trailing-edge.com>
>         http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
>         <http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh>
>
>
>
>     --
>     Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
>                                       ||  on a psychedelic trip
>     email: bqt at softjar.se <mailto:bqt at softjar.se>             ||
>     Reading murder books
>     pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Simh mailing list
>     Simh at trailing-edge.com <mailto:Simh at trailing-edge.com>
>     http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
>     <http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh>
>
>


-- 
Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at softjar.se             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol


More information about the Simh mailing list