[COFF] In Memoriam: Jay W. Forrester, happy birthday Gene Amdahl, and LSD
Dave Horsfall
dave at horsfall.org
Sun Nov 17 15:14:10 AEST 2019
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> More than just the instruction set - IBM published a formal description
> of the S/360 (in APL in the IBM Systems Journal issue that announced the
> S/360). The S/360 was (I believe) the first case where a company
> announced a computer architecture (rather than an implementation) and
> implementations were expected to precisely comply with the architecture
> (no more finding undocumented instructions and side-effects and writing
> code that depended on them). This meant that clone makers could build a
> clone that accurately emulated a S/360.
Ah, I'd forgotten about the APL documentation; thanks! Talk about giving
away the keys to the kingdom: Amdahl, Fujitsu, Hitachi...
> AFAIR, the only "implementation defined" instruction was DIAGNOSE,
> OS/360 could presumably tell what it was running on by checking
> particular DIAGNOSE function. (VM/370 was paravirtualised and used
> DIAGNOSE to communicate with the hypervisor - CP).
Another point I had forgotten :-( Yep, the DIAG instruction was utterly
implementation-dependent, and thus OS/360 could tell whether it was
running on a clone or not.
Cut me some slack; I turned 67 last month :-(
> In the early PC era, it was not uncommon for applications to verify they
> were running on a genuine IBM PC by looking for the copyright notice in
> the BIOS - which clone makers countered by placing a "not" before an
> equivalent copyright notice.
I remember the days of the "grey imports" (or "gray" for the Americans);
if it ran Flight Simulator and not labelled "IBM" then it was technically
illegal; shortly afterwards if it did *not* run FS then nobody would buy
it :-)
How things change...
-- Dave
More information about the COFF
mailing list