paul@hpfclp.UUCP (08/12/84)
Although I really do admire the interface, I'll bet it is a real
*nightmare* to emulate. I would also venture to say that the software
emulation is slow (although maybe not as bad as Intel's 8087 emulation).
The coprocessor concept is really nice, but the complexity of the
interface and the slowness of possible emulations make it almost
mandatory that a system have one (i.e. a 68881).
It's ironic how coprocessors (in general) are designed to be optional,
but systems without them must have exceedingly complex software.
Paul Beiser
Hewlett-Packard Ft. Collins, Colorado
...{ihnp4,hplabs}!hpfcla!pauldan@haddock.UUCP (05/27/85)
I would certainly approve if a future 68000 supported writes into PC space. Awhile back I was designing a dynamic linking facility for use on several different architectures. To load a new module into an existing address space, I wanted to be able to put the text (PIC, of course) at any point in the address space, and put the data a fixed distance after it (said distance determined by the MMU, of course). Then I wanted to address the data using PC-relative addressing. The deliberate prohibition of PC-relative addressing on writes on the 68000 got in the way, forcing the use of a dedicated register for the data. Another thing that got in the way was the absence of a rather peculiar addressing mode: PC relative indirect. What I wanted to do on external calls was call through a pointer located a known distance from the call instruction. I have a vague impression that the 68020 may have solved this problem, but I haven't seen any recent 68020 information so I'm not sure. Dan Franklin
anny@hpfcde.UUCP (anny) (08/06/85)
/***** hpfcde:net.micro.68k / uw-june!reid / 5:16 pm Jul 26, 1985*/ ...rumored that the assembler is one developed at MIT.... ...see if you can identify it from the syntax: scanne: link a6,#-_F1 |moveml #_S1,a6@(-_F1) | A1 = 24 movl a6@(-4),d0 . . . unlk a6 rts _F1 = 4 _S1 = 0 /* ---------- */ I worked with the MIT 68000 assembler in college, and your assembler definately uses the same syntax as MIT's. I don't have the documentation any more. I seem to remember it as being extremely poor. Try MIT ... Anny Randel Fort Collins Systems Division Hewlett-Packard hplabs!hpfcla!anny
brad@gcc-bill.ARPA (Brad Parker) (08/11/85)
In article <52500001@hpfcde.UUCP> anny@hpfcde.UUCP (anny) writes: >/***** hpfcde:net.micro.68k / uw-june!reid / 5:16 pm Jul 26, 1985*/ >...rumored that the assembler is one developed at MIT.... >...see if you can identify it from the syntax: >scanne: > link a6,#-_F1 >|moveml #_S1,a6@(-_F1) >| A1 = 24 > movl a6@(-4),d0 >... >_F1 = 4 >_S1 = 0 >/* ---------- */ > >I seem to remember it as being extremely poor. Try MIT ... > >Anny Randel/Fort Collins Systems Division/Hewlett-Packard/hplabs!hpfcla!anny Looks like the same syntax as BSD4.2 for 68000's - try cc -S on a SUN. I'd like to speak to the person who decided not to use Motorola's op codes. -- J Bradford Parker uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!brad "She said you know how to spell AUDACIOUSLY? I could tell I was in love... You want to go to heaven? or would you rather not be saved?" - Lloyd Coal
guy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris) (08/11/85)
> I worked with the MIT 68000 assembler in college, and your assembler > definately uses the same syntax as MIT's. I don't have the documentation > any more. I seem to remember it as being extremely poor. The documentation, or the syntax? I definitely vote for the syntax as being poor, because it neither agrees with the syntax described as "assembler syntax" in the "M68000 16/32-bit Microprocessor Programmer's Reference Manual" nor that used by the PDP-11 and VAX. Was there any good reason for MIT to invent that weird syntax? (The assembler isn't that hot either; slow and buggy.) Guy Harris
berger@datacube.UUCP (10/02/85)
There is no reason that multi-tasking should have much impact on the price of a modern (68000 based) computer. Its mainly writing the software correctly. The hardware is not much different.
porges@inmet.UUCP (10/31/85)
>>I'm interested in finding out information about tools available >>for developing under UNIX with the 68010 as the target processor. >>I need things such as a cross-compiler, disassembler, etc. >>Any information would be greatly appreciated. >> >> Matt Duval >> PY 2D-343 >> x2103 >> py!garage!desoto!duval I'd like to respond but I don't know how to get to py, and your alleged address and/or phone number are useless. Could you post a real address and/or number, or call (617) 661-0072 and ask about 68010 cross-development tools. (We are Intermetrics, Inc. -- sorry for the ad...) -- Don Porges ...harpo!inmet!porges ...hplabs!sri-unix!cca!ima!inmet!porges ...yale-comix!ima!inmet!porges
berger@datacube.UUCP (11/07/85)
At least two companies make such things:
Performance Technologies Inc
300 Main St.
East Rochester, NY. 14445
716-586-6727
HVE/Hal-Versa Engineering Inc
1684 Dell Ave
Campbell, Ca. 95008
408-370-4666
Now if I could find someone who makes an IBM PC/AT to VME and
a Q-Bus to VME adapter I'd be all set!
[Insert normal disclaimer about everything here]
Bob Berger
Datacube Inc. 4 Dearborn Rd. Peabody, Ma 01960 617-535-6644
ihnp4!datacube!berger
decvax!cca!mirror!datacube!berger
{mit-eddie,cyb0vax}!mirror!datacube!bergerberger@datacube.UUCP (11/07/85)
>Os-9 definitely interests me, but I'd NEVER write any real time code in >basic. Again the C cros compiler is the issue. I'm reluctant to spend >$3000 on a system when my 20 meg 8mhz pc is perfectly adequate for >i/o purposes. I would consider buying a $1000 68k coprocessor board for my >pc provided I could get a cheap compiler to run on it which could produce >romable code Yes the thought of writing in BASIC is stomach turning. But OS9 supports C, Pascal, Assembler and almost as bad as BASIC, they will soon have a Fortran 77 compiler. Their C compiler produces pretty fast 68000 code. Most of the optimization is in register usage with pointers. They are working on more global optimization. They also seem real sincere in continuous improvements, including complying to the ANSI C standard as it comes out. (Their main C compiler guy is on the ANSI committee.) There are two companies that make 68000 boards for the PC that run OS9 and can be used as cross development environments: TLM Systems 67 Grandview Pleasantville, NY 10570 914-747-1450 Hallock Systems BOX 86 Herkimer, NY 13350 315-866-7125 Also Microware is considering porting their C cross compiler to run native on an IBM PC. So you would not have to buy a 68000 board for your PC, just buy their cross compiler, and then download to your target 68000. They just need a push to get them to do it. >A word about 0s9. While I find it intriguing, I am afraid of writing real >time stuff (music stuff) for an OS for which I cannot obtain source code. >Has anyone had experience writing real time stuff (resolution of 1ms) >under OS9 who could say anything about it? We do real time stuff with it and its no problem. You don't need source. They will give you source for their drivers though if you need it. If you buy the port pak it comes with all neccessary sources. In general though we have not had a problem with lack of source. Microware is rather flexible here. Bob Berger Datacube Inc. 4 Dearborn Rd. Peabody, Ma 01960 617-535-6644 ihnp4!datacube!berger decvax!cca!mirror!datacube!berger {mit-eddie,cyb0vax}!mirror!datacube!berger
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (05/08/86)
Well, it's finally happened officially. OS-9/68000 for the Atari 520ST and 1040 ST was announced and demonstrated at COMDEX in Atlanta last week. Languages listed as available are Basic09, C, Pascal, Fortran, and COBOL. According to messages on the CompuServe OS-9 SIG, support is already there for all ST hardware, including MIDI and CD-ROM ports (the latter not being *too* surprising in view of the joint Sony-Philips-Microware work on CD- ROM). The fellow who saw the beast saw it running with an Atari 20Mbyte hard disk, with a terminal hung off the RS-232 port. Basic09/68000, alas, is still slower than one would like. People there say that Jack and Sam Tramiel had it demonstrated to them and were VERY interested and asking questions. Plans are for a graphics interface (I would presume VDI, considering Microware's work with GSS) and a facility whereby one could run TOS as a process under OS-9. TLM (the folks who did the port) also had their 68010 board for the International BM PC AT/XT running OS-9 there. Messages on CIS from folks at MicroTRENDS, the company marketing OS-9 for the 520ST, say that OS-9 for the Amiga should follow shortly. James Jones
@hpislx.UUCP (05/08/86)
This message is empty.