vtserver
James Lothian
simul8 at simul8.demon.co.uk
Sun Oct 17 05:11:03 AEST 1999
Hmm.. I seem to remember, from when I was thinking about rolling my own
11 OS a few years ago, that the /34 differs from most of the other
mid-range
11s in automatically restoring the CPU registers on a page fault. I
think I
picked this up from the differences table in the /04, /34 & /60 CPU
handbook.
(This was unfortunately no use at all to me, as I've got a /40 not a
/34.)
Of course, that was a while ago and I might be wrong.
James
"Steven M. Schultz" wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> > From: Wilko Bulte <wilko at yedi.iaf.nl>
>
> I will be doing some more research on this when I get home from
> work tonight.
>
> > I once had Ultrix-11 3.1 running on a dual RK05 11/34. What I'd call a
> > very minimal system ;-) But it ran
>
> That is because DEC put the extra effort into supporting non-split I/D
> machines. The "stock" V7 really wanted a 11/70. In fact there was a
> chapter in the back of one of the manuals/books detailing what it took
> to get V7 running on an 11/40 (it was a non-trivial project).
>
> Several things conspire against V7 and later on 11/34 (or 35, 40, 60,
> etc). The two most notable ones are the limited address space,
> everything (drivers, data structures, general kernel code) must fit
> in 56kb instead of 120kb - (8kb reserved for the I/O page) and lack
> of instruction restart on MMU faults.
>
> I'll take a look at the V7 layout later but my memory is that it
> wanted an 11/70.
>
> Steven Schultz
Received: (from major at localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) id FAA18139
for pups-liszt; Sun, 17 Oct 1999 05:47:02 +1000 (EST)
More information about the TUHS
mailing list