Robert Reiner <RREINER@SIMTEL20.ARPA> (02/08/85)
IS there a good C cross compiler which will produce 360-20 source assembly nmemonics? Please contact Steve Lesh 602-538-8047, 8075 or AV 879-8047 879-8075 Thanks in advance ! -------
johnl@ima.UUCP (02/11/85)
> IS there a good C cross compiler which will > produce 360-20 source assembly nmemonics? Oh, like, wow. Are there still 360/20s around? Now let's see, hmmn, the 360/20 can multiply in decimal but not in binary, so if you write this: struct foo { int a,b,c,d,e; } foo[100]; parp(foo[i]); it has to pick up the value of i, convert it to decimal, multiply it by 10 (which takes about a millisecond), convert it back to binary, add in the address of foo and you're ready to dereference. No, that's silly, we could do the multiplication by 10 by a decimal shift. No, even better, we can do it with an addition chain, so we load it into a register and add it to itself, then we move it to another register -- wait, can't do that because there's no load register instruction unless you've hacked the microcode that's loaded from the box of cards inside the back of the machine -- so you store that ... Well, anyway, I expect the answer is no C compiler for the 360/20. Sorry, you're still stuck with RPG, or maybe subset PL/I. John Levine, ima!johnl or Levine@YALE.ARPA
ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (02/12/85)
> > IS there a good C cross compiler which will > > produce 360-20 source assembly nmemonics? > > Oh, like, wow. Are there still 360/20s around? I'd trade half of an 8085 for one, if you throw in a power feed that someone else pays for. -- Norman Diamond UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa "Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (02/12/85)
> > IS there a good C cross compiler which will > > produce 360-20 source assembly nmemonics? > > Oh, like, wow. Are there still 360/20s around? [followed by derogatory comments about the 360/20 instruction set] I fail to see the purpose in responding to someone's request for information in this manner. Do you really think that several hundred thousand dollars, or a few million dollars, worth of equipment is going to be thrown away every time someone comes up with something new? I think the name for this kind of attitude is "snobbery." > Well, anyway, I expect the answer is no C compiler for the 360/20. Sorry, > you're still stuck with RPG, or maybe subset PL/I. Why didn't you say so in the first place? > John Levine, ima!johnl or Levine@YALE.ARPA *** REPLACE THIS MESS WITH YOUR LINEAGE *** Gary Samuelson
gnu@sun.uucp (John Gilmore) (02/13/85)
> IS there a good C cross compiler which will > produce 360-20 source assembly nmemonics? If anyone finds a card deck with a 1401 C compiler on it, please let me know. Now that's a machine! 3-digit addresses and variable infinite length ints, to make your porting jobs easy. Though at least it checked for zero pointers; the hardware would hang requiring a manual reset if you used one. This is the machine where > and < comparisons were an extra-cost OPTION -- standardly you just get = and !=. The 360/20 appears to be a slightly facelifted 14xx machine anyway, maybe you can get both compilers from the same source. I know these monkeys, see, and they have a few keypunches and lots of time...
nather@utastro.UUCP (Ed Nather) (02/14/85)
> If anyone finds a card deck with a 1401 C compiler on it, please > let me know. Now that's a machine! 3-digit addresses and variable > infinite length ints, [...] I thought the largest int was limited by memory size ... -- Ed Nather Astronony Dept, U of Texas @ Austin {allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather
ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (02/18/85)
> > If anyone finds a card deck with a 1401 C compiler on it, please > > let me know. Now that's a machine! 3-digit addresses and variable > > infinite length ints, [...] > > I thought the largest int was limited by memory size ... Not on that machine. If no flag bits at all were set, then the int would repeat the same digits over and over again, the length of each repetition being equal to memory size. Isn't wraparound fun? -- Norman Diamond UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa "Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."
johnl@ima.UUCP (02/20/85)
>> Oh, like, wow. Are there still 360/20s around? >[followed by derogatory comments about the 360/20 instruction set] >I fail to see the purpose in responding to someone's request for >information in this manner. Do you really think that several hundred >thousand dollars, or a few million dollars, worth of equipment is going to >be thrown away every time someone comes up with something new? I think the >name for this kind of attitude is "snobbery." I think some people are a little touchy. I have nothing against the 360/20 -- it was fun to program. But the /20 was designed twenty years ago. It was made of discrete transistors and core memory. There is newer stuff in glass cases in the Computer Museum. I really am amazed if somewhere there is still a /20 in production use. For the cost of power and maintenance alone, it'd likely be cheaper to throw the 20 away and replace it, perhaps with a System/36 if the software is mostly RPG or a PC XT/370 if it's in assembler. The /20 was a minimal CPU onto which you could hang some decent peripherals, like a 1000 LPM train printer. But it's dumb -- less cpu power than an 8080, and with typically 4K or 8K of memory, not much room to maneuver. Writing a C compiler for this fine antique would be a tour de force, but it's hard to imagine why one would even try. John Levine, ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.ARPA PS: If you want to get rid of your 20, perhaps the Computer Museum would take it for its collection -- it's a little weak in PDP-8 era IBMery.