TUHS March 2003

tuhs@tuhs.org

38 participants
53 discussions

Re: [pups] 2.11BSD "make unix" aborts Error 141

by norman＠nose.cs.utoronto.ca

Steven M. Schultz: It's the exit status of the assembler. On _some_ modules, the assembler ('as') jumps off into the weeds and executes an 'exit' system call with a non-zero value in R0. 141 is a lower case 'a' as I recall. 0141 (octal) is 'a. 141 decimal is 0215 octal, i.e. carriage return with parity. What seems more likely is that 141 decimal is 0200 + 13 decimal. If a simple value returned by wait, that means SIGPIPE + core image, which seems unlikely. If an exit status as displayed by the shell, it just means SIGPIPE (128 + signal number). Or is signal 13 different in 2.11 than in V7? (That seems even less likely.) SIGPIPE doesn't seem entirely unreasonable as an accident that could happen if something goes wrong in the assembly-language-code-tweaking part of the kernel build. Of course if it's a random value handed to sys exit, all rules are off. Norman Wilson Toronto ON

21 years, 1 month

Re: [pups] 2.11BSD "make unix" aborts Error 141

by Steven M. Schultz

Hi - > From: "Jonathan Engdahl" <j.r.engdahl(a)adelphia.net> > I'm running essentially the CURLY 2.11BSD system with networking on a Ah, yes - the 'master reference 2.11BSD system' ('SHEMP' is a virtual pdp-11 running under P11 ;)). > PDP-11/53. When I go to rebuild unix with "make all", the build will run for > a while, then quit with "Error 141". If I type "make all" again, it keeps on Yep, I've been seeing that for years and aside from some kernel hackery to assist in the debugging I haven't done much other than to come up with a workaround. > going for a while. After several iterations of this, eventually the make > completes, and the system will boot the result. What is this "Error 141" > business? It's the exit status of the assembler. On _some_ modules, the assembler ('as') jumps off into the weeds and executes an 'exit' system call with a non-zero value in R0. 141 is a lower case 'a' as I recall. Now for the interesting part. If you do something like setenv FOOBAR abcdef and run the make the assembler won't "exit 'a". ALSO, if you run the pipeline of the failing command manually, using temp files, it won't fail. Makes it very hard to debug. > I've not looked for the cause of this yet. I'm being lazy, and hoping > someone has seen this before and can give me a quick answer, before I go I'm lazy too (I hear that being lazy is a virtue in programmers ;)) so I just pad the environment with "FOO abc" or something and the make works. The only idea I've come up with to try and track the problem down is a hack to the 'exit' logic in the kernel to create a coredump of a program that exits with 'non-zero' status. Then at least there'd be something to postmortem. An added complication is that the assembler has this nasty habit of using 'jmp' to move around rather than 'jsr' so it's hard to find out where the program was at times. A long time ago I did make a few changes to 'as' to reduce the usage of 'jmp' in an attempt to track this down but then, when even I ran the program under the debugger it never failed - a typical Heisenberg type of bug ;( Good Luck. Steven Schultz

21 years, 1 month

[pups] Progress on 2.11BSD kernel

by Ian King

Well, given the excellent advice I received here (especially from Steven Schultz), I got the networking kernel to build after moving a few modules around between overlays. It was indeed the overage on DATA/BSS that was killing my build. I did a 'make install' and sync'ed, then restarted. <sigh> Now, when I respond to the boot prompt with 'ra(0,0)unix', I'm getting the following: <banner for the image, date, time, etc.> panic: iinit no fs on 5/0 I'm booting from an RD54, and checking both 'ls -l /dev/ra*' and /dev/MAKEDEV, it sure looks to me that the major device number for this drive is 5 - am I missing anything yet? That's what I called out as the ROOTDEV in my config file (in sys/conf), with '5,1' as the SWAPDEV. (I snuck a peek at the CURLY config file as well, and it shows major device 5 for ra.) Note that this is exactly the same device as I have been using all along with the GENERIC kernel, so I know there's really a filesystem there. (FWIW, I didn't define an autoboot device.) In ufs_subr.c, I see where this message is apparently generated in the getfs() function, but I can't really tell from that where it's biting me. Hey, if it wasn't a challenge, it wouldn't be fun, right? Right? TIA -- Ian PS: I'm really glad I followed the advice to copy my old (GENERIC) kernel image to 'oldunix' - so I can still boot!

21 years, 1 month

Re: [pups] 2BSD build problem - unix.o not too big

by Steven M. Schultz

Hi - > From: David Evans <dfevans(a)bbcr.uwaterloo.ca> > > I don't recall seeing any overlay info when I set up my 11/73 back in > January. I even asked the dreaded overlay FAQ here! :) I was also at 431. Ok, I probably only thought about including the writeup in the documentation. I know I did write up a moderately lengthy article about dealing with the overlay setup in response to a problem someone was having. I just never went and incorporated it into the setup/installatino documentation ;( One thing, obvious now that I think of it, I forgot to mention last night is that "too big for type 431" can also happen if the D space total is too large. If 'MAXUSERS' is set too high for example then more than 48KB of D space will be needed and the linker will complain. Look at the sum of the DATA and BSS segments (it might be necessary to sum up the .o files individually) - if it's pushing 48KB then that's the problem. Cheers, Steven Schultz

21 years, 1 month

Re: [TUHS] SCO & Caldera?

by Christian Groessler

Hi, On 03/12/2003 10:18:33 AM ZE10B "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" wrote: > >On Wednesday, 12 March 2003 at 9:27:13 +1000, Warren Toomey wrote: >> >> So the new license specifically prohibits System III, whereas the >> Ancient UNIX license implicitly permitted System III. > >Heh. So we have something to show for our $100 after all :-) Is System III somewhere in the archive for us $100 license owners? regards, chris

21 years, 1 month

Re: [TUHS] SCO & Caldera?

by Warren Toomey

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 03:31:55PM -0800, Andru Luvisi wrote: > I don't have the $100 license, but I did get one of the click-through > licenses. Then I assume you would be safe to download SysIII from the SCO/Caldera page, as long as the license covers that. Warren

21 years, 1 month

SysIII from SCO/Caldera

by Warren Toomey

8-) Looks like Caldera are quite happy for you to obtain SysIII without signing any license agreement. http://www2.caldera.com/offers/ancient001/sysIII/ This is just a FYI. You would have to consider your legal position if you did decide to download it. Warren

21 years, 1 month

Re: [TUHS] Russian Ancient UNIX stuff in the Archive

by msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG

Sven Mascheck <sven.mascheck(a)student.uni-ulm.de> wrote: > Then the following might be an option, /UnixArchive/Applications/Ritter_Vi/ > > "This is basically ex/vi 3.7, 6/7/85, from the 2.11BSD distribution" > "A larger addition is the ability to handle ISO character sets." > > (recent development continued on <http://ex-vi.berlios.de/>) Where can I get the early versions of this effort? http://ex-vi.berlios.de/Changes lists at the very bottom: : Release 31/05/00 : * String extraction using mkstr and xstr is not longer be done. : * An ANSI C preprocessor may be used. : * Changes of symbol names due to collisions on newer systems. : * Fixed a null pointer reference in ex_tty.c. : * Included the 2.11BSD termcap in a subdirectory. Ex could use any : termcap library, however, that does not use malloc(). : * Support of eight bit characters excluding the range 0200 to 0237 is : enabled with -DISO8859_1. It does not include the regular expression code, : but otherwise works well in practice with the ISO-8859-1 character set. And all the newer stuff up to late 2002 is porting to "modern UNIX". But I don't want "modern UNIX", I'm running the original UNIX in its virgin form, I just want the 8-bit fix. The only files downloadable from ex-vi.berlios.de are 2002 releases and in the UNIX Archive Applications/Ritter_Vi contains only a tiny README file pointing to http://ex-vi.berlios.de/. Where are the old 2000 versions? MS

21 years, 1 month

Russian Ancient UNIX stuff in the Archive

by msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG

Hi there, I remember seeing in the Unix Archive a few years ago (back when the $100 licenses just came out and it was called PUPS Archive) some Russian Ancient UNIX stuff, some things contributed to the UNIX community by the early Russian UNIX users (on Soviet PDP-11s). However, I am now looking for it and cannot find it. Would anyone have a pointer? I am trying to russify my flagship UNIX (4.3BSD-Quasijarus) and I'm adding/ fixing 8-bit support in various parts of the system, and I got stuck on ex/vi. The sucker just won't handle 8-bit chars. Since my job is to maintain Ancient UNIX (my flavor thereof) rather than replace it, replacing the original ex/vi with one of the modern reimplementations is not an option. I need to massage 8-bit support into the existing original Berkeley ex/vi with as few changes as possible. A friend of mine told me that Back in The Days the first UNIX users in the then USSR were running patched (russified) 2.xBSD on Soviet PDP-11s and had KOI-8 for Russian. Since the flagship editor on <any>BSD is ex/vi, this makes me think that those early Russian users used it and thus their patches accomplished just what I need. And so I'm looking for those patches. TIA for any help, MS

21 years, 1 month

Re: [pups] 2BSD build problem - unix.o not too big

by Steven M. Schultz

> From: "Ian King" <iking(a)killthewabbit.org> > I'm building a 2.11BSD kernel on my 11/73 (so I can include the networking > code and put my machine on the LAN!), and I'm seeing the error "too big for > type 431". Through the wonders of Google, I saw your discussion of this > error and followed your advice (from 1996!). However, when I ask 'size I'd have, up to now, sworn that the overlay setup was in the documentation (one of the appendices) but it could well be that it's still off in a file somewhere in the mess I call my filesystem ;) > unix.o', I get a size comfortably within the limits for base - 50112, well > below the 57344 you cite. None of the overlays exceeds 8192, and the 'total > text' figure is well below your example, too. FWIW, I did a 'naive build' Do you have any 0 length overlays? There can't be any gaps in the overlay structure. For example, this is legal: overlays: 8128,7552,8000,7296,8192,7424,5824,6784,3520 but this is not: overlays: 8128,7552,8000,7296,8192,0,5824,6784,3520 > first, copying GENERIC and changing a few parameters; after seeing the error > 'text segment too big' I went through the config file with a little more > thought and eliminated drivers I clearly didn't need (I don't have RL01/02s, You might need to go thru the Makefile too. Good idea to eliminate drivers you don't have (save their D-space requirements) but that can create empty overlays and that does not work. > for instance). Then I started getting this error. I did a 'make clean' > just to be sure, but still make gives me the 'too big for type 431' error. > (Yes, I RTFM on ld.) Hmmm, patch level 431 is recent enough I'd have thought to avoid a 'ld' problem (current is 444 but nothing recently has touched ld). What is the output from 'size unix.o'? Cheers, Steven Schultz

21 years, 1 month

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

TUHS March 2003