I've assembled some notes from old manuals and other sources
on the formats used for on-disk file systems through the
Additional notes, comments on style, and whatnot are welcome.
(It may be sensible to send anything in the last two categories
directly to me, rather than to the whole list.)
Consider lcc, the Princeton C compiler. It's much smaller than gcc, and ANSI
lcc's a good compiler; it has become cc in my own peculiar Ancient UNIX
environment. But my environment is on VAXes, not PDP-11s; the lcc I use
probably cannot be compiled to a core compiler binary of less than about
180KB, of which 136KB is text, and that is without any real code generators.
(For those who know lcc: I am using a slightly-hacked-up lcc 3.6; the
180KB binary includes just the symbolic and null code generators, not
the enormous one I ended up with for the VAX.)
On the other hand, it is probably easier to split lcc into overlays or
multiple passes to make it fit on a PDP-11 than to do the same to gcc;
and lcc works fine as a cross-compiler. And it's a good solid ANSI
compiler; enough so that it is a little annoying to use it on heritage
code (it grumbles, correctly, if a function returns no value and wasn't
declared void), and helpful or very painful (depending on your point of
view) when used on really old code that is sleazy about mixing types of
pointers in procedure arguments, or reusing one structure as part of another,
or the like. I had an interesting time a few months ago getting an old
version of tbl to compile cleanly and produce correct results under lcc;
the program contained some ancient constructs that are truly remarkable
to look back on, especially for those of us who started out programming
that way and learned better the hard way ...
If I were going to work with PDP-11s, I would probably use lcc as a
cross-compiler myself, after writing or snitching a code generator of
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 10:03:45PM +0100, Jonathan Naylor wrote:
> With so much open source code out there, it'd be a relatively simple
> task to find C code for IDE disc access and such like. I would even
> suggest getting older Linux code from the 2.0.x days as its likely to
> be a little less complex, while still being stable.
Linux!? why not one of the three BSD-licensed BSD-derived Net/Free/Open
BSDs? keep it "in the family" so to speak. :)
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | agrier(a)poofygoof.com
"[...] I generally haven't found IDM guys to be very good
live acts, most of them just sit down at their laptop and
tweak reaktor." -- Brandon Daniel
This must be a FAQ but I couldn't find the answer anywhere.
I have some 2.11BSD disk images that I want to copy large files onto on a
NetBSD box. Can someone please point me to a tool that can do it?
These are disk images that I use with p11. For various reasons, using p11
simulated tape drive isn't an option. I use kermit to inject small files into
the running p11 + 2.11BSD. It takes many minutes to 300KB. It takes much,
much more time to copy 12MB.
> From: Christian Groessler <cpg(a)aladdin.de>
> > Look at the /VERSION file. The first or second line will have
> > the patchlevel. That file's updated by each patch.
> I have 400. I assume www.2bsd.com contains the newest patches? So 442
> is the latest?
Wow, that is quite old.
A faster link is at FTP.TO.GD-ES.COM (that's a T-1 vs the ISDL
link I have at home).
It _might_ be easier to create an install tape from the files in
the 2.11 portion of the PUPS archive - I think that was updated
to about patchlevel 432 or so. There is documentation on how to
create a boot tape, etc from the compressed files.
On the other hand it might be instructive/interesting/whatever to
apply the 42 updates manually - just be sure to read the instructions
that come with each one :)
Does the archive contain any Venix images that are not in "tdo" format? I
have been unsuccessful in creating the floppies using that method. If I
could get an image from "dd", I could use my VAX or PDP to create images for
On 02/27/2002 03:25:22 PM PST "Steven M. Schultz" wrote:
>Hello again -
>> From: Christian Groessler <cpg(a)aladdin.de>
>> Regarding the patchlevels, how do I find out which patchlevel my
>> system is at?
> Look at the /VERSION file. The first or second line will have
> the patchlevel. That file's updated by each patch.
I have 400. I assume www.2bsd.com contains the newest patches? So 442
is the latest?
Hello again -
> From: Christian Groessler <cpg(a)aladdin.de>
> > Mmmm, I wonder if the problems you were having were caused by
> > /dev not being correctly populated.
> Maybe. I noticed they're missing and recreated them by hand. Perhaps I
> made a mistake there.
It would be easy enough to do - or perhaps a critical one was
left out. Filesystems without device nodes can be moved
with a 'tar' pipeline but the root filesystem is special.
> It's a problem of the p11 emulator I use. I got a patch off-list which
> fixed it. It was some signed/unsigned thing.
> Regarding the patchlevels, how do I find out which patchlevel my
> system is at?
Look at the /VERSION file. The first or second line will have
the patchlevel. That file's updated by each patch.
On 02/26/2002 03:29:07 PM PST "Steven M. Schultz" wrote:
> Mmmm, I wonder if the problems you were having were caused by
> /dev not being correctly populated.
Maybe. I noticed they're missing and recreated them by hand. Perhaps I
made a mistake there.
>> $ df
>> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
>> /dev/xp0a 7816 2658 5158 04% /
>> /dev/xp0g 151625 117599 34026 08% /usr
>> Btw, the capacity values look a bit strange?
> Yes, they do look (more than a little bit) strange.
> On my system here (a P11 based emulated PDP-11 - I have a real 11/73
> but it is only powered up when I'm actively testing):
>Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
>/dev/xp0a 8228 3163 5065 38% /
>/dev/xp0h 155328 84188 71140 54% /usr
> What patchlevel did you mention the system was at? There were a lot
> of patches issued after the ' 2.11_rp_unknown' image was created.
> One thing, which probably will not make any difference, to try would
> be to recompile 'df' (and possibly 'libc') and see if the problem
> changes. Looks like it's a math error of some kind so either
> the compiler/libraries are broken or P11's having a problem doing
It's a problem of the p11 emulator I use. I got a patch off-list which
fixed it. It was some signed/unsigned thing.
Regarding the patchlevels, how do I find out which patchlevel my
system is at?