From wilson@dbit.com Sat Jan 29 23:06:09 PST 2000 Article: 6310 of alt.sys.pdp10 Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: PDP-10 Emulators References: <20000129094039.25683.00000303@ng-cf1.aol.com> Organization: D Bit, Troy, NY From: wilson@dbit.com (John Wilson) NNTP-Posting-Host: dbit.dbit.com Message-ID: <38931fcd_2@news.wizvax.net> Date: 29 Jan 2000 12:13:49 -0500 X-Trace: 29 Jan 2000 12:13:49 -0500, dbit.dbit.com Lines: 18 XPident: wilson XPident: Unknown Path: news3.best.com!news2.best.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.wizvax.net!news.wizvax.net!dbit.com!wilson Xref: news3.best.com alt.sys.pdp10:6310 In article <20000129094039.25683.00000303@ng-cf1.aol.com>, JMFBAH wrote: >And what version of microcode are you talking about? 240? (I >think that's the correct number.) And where did you get a copy >of the development pack? Do you still have it? The KL microcode sources and assembler used to be downloadable from MIT-MC. I remember asking Don Lewine why DEC didn't freak out and sue MIT for leaving what was then a $25,000 DEC product lying around where anyone could copy it, and I liked his answer -- the $25,000 price tag is actually paying for the right to gripe to DEC about the micromachine bugs that a user would surely run into when trying to run something other than DEC's own microcode. DEC didn't have to pay any attention to bug reports from pirates, and as piracy goes, stealing the microcode isn't such a big deal, since it's only useful if you have a KL10 anyway and $25K is small change compared to what you paid for that. John Wilson D Bit From lars.spam@nocrew.org Sat Sep 7 23:36:08 PDT 2002 Article: 17731 of alt.sys.pdp10 Path: iad-read.news.verio.net!dfw-artgen!iad-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!junk.nocrew.ORG!not-for-mail From: Lars Brinkhoff Newsgroups: comp.arch,alt.folklore.computers,alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: What was the size of Microcode in various machines Date: 04 Sep 2002 09:17:51 +0200 Organization: nocrew Lines: 54 Sender: lars@junk.nocrew.org Message-ID: <853csqql40.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> References: <3D6EA8D1.1CE008B7@cisco.com> <3D743E47.4A05925@jps.net> <85wuq3r4y6.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: junk.nocrew.org (213.242.147.30) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1031124016 58179901 213.242.147.30 (16 [140306]) X-Orig-Path: junk.nocrew.org!not-for-mail User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 Xref: dfw-artgen comp.arch:57853 alt.folklore.computers:97614 alt.sys.pdp10:17731 [Now also cross-posted to alt.sys.pdp10.] Eric Smith writes: > Lars Brinkhoff writes: > > I'm not sure, but these may be the microcode widths and sizes of some > > PDP-10 processors: > > > > DEC KL10 model A 96 bits x 1280 words > > DEC KL10 model B 96 bits x 2K words > > Really only about 80 bits per microword, as not all of the bits are > actually implemented in the hardware. The microassembler produces > 96-bit words, but the extra bits get dropped on the floor when > loaded into the hardware. Thanks for the info. > The KL10 "model A" described in the System Reference Manual refers > to the KL10-PA Arithmetic Processor, and the "model B" refers to the > KL10-PV. Or the KL10-PW, right? > Note that these are used in various models with a single letter > suffix, so a KL10-B is actually a "model A" (unless field upgraded). > > There was reportedly a cancelled KL10 model that would have expanded > the control store to 4K words. This would have been nice as the > KL10-PV microcode was at the size limit and features were getting > removed to make room for bug fixes. > > > DEC KS10 96 bits x 2K words > > The microsequencer has 12-bit addresses, and the branch field in the > microword is 12 bits wide, so in principle the KS10 microstore could > be expanded to 4K words. However, DEC had a hard time squeezing > even the 2K words into the space available using the SRAM chips they > could get in 1977. And they had a lot of problems with those SRAM > chips, leading to a patented technique where a control store parity > error would cause the front-end processor to initiate an on-the-fly > microcode reload. But the 96-bit width is correct, then? I restore these lines from my original message in case anyone on alt.sys.pdp10 has any comments: > > Xerox MAXC 72 bits x 1K or 2K words > > Foonly F-1 120 bits? > > Systems Concepts 80 bits x 32K words -- Lars Brinkhoff http://lars.nocrew.org/ Linux, GCC, PDP-10, Brinkhoff Consulting http://www.brinkhoff.se/ HTTP programming From eric-no-spam-for-me@brouhaha.com Sat Sep 7 23:36:22 PDT 2002 Article: 17734 of alt.sys.pdp10 Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: comp.arch,alt.folklore.computers,alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: What was the size of Microcode in various machines References: <3D6EA8D1.1CE008B7@cisco.com> <3D743E47.4A05925@jps.net> <85wuq3r4y6.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <853csqql40.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 04 Sep 2002 11:22:03 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 19 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.66.107.17 X-Trace: 4 Sep 2002 11:46:40 -0700, 209.66.107.17 Path: iad-read.news.verio.net!dfw-artgen!iad-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.spies.com!209.66.107.17 Xref: dfw-artgen comp.arch:57917 alt.folklore.computers:97663 alt.sys.pdp10:17734 I wrote: > The KL10 "model A" described in the System Reference Manual refers > to the KL10-PA Arithmetic Processor, and the "model B" refers to the > KL10-PV. Lars Brinkhoff writes: > Or the KL10-PW, right? The KL10-PW is functionally very nearly the same as the KL10-PV, so most of the "model B" docs apply. There are some details that are changed, though, and they aren't documented in the System Reference Manual. :-( I do have a doc somewhere that describes the changes visible to the system programmer; I'll try to get it scanned soon. > But the 96-bit width [of the KS10 microcode word] > is correct, then? I don't have the docs handy at the moment, but that sounds right. From eric-no-spam-for-me@brouhaha.com Sat Sep 7 23:37:27 PDT 2002 Article: 17743 of alt.sys.pdp10 Sender: eric@ruckus.brouhaha.com From: Eric Smith Newsgroups: alt.sys.pdp10 Subject: Re: What was the size of Microcode in various machines References: <3D6EA8D1.1CE008B7@cisco.com> <3D743E47.4A05925@jps.net> <85wuq3r4y6.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <853csqql40.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <85lm6hoy72.fsf@junk.nocrew.org> <8765xkslao.fsf@prep.synonet.com> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy. Date: 05 Sep 2002 13:14:13 -0700 Message-ID: Lines: 16 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.66.107.17 X-Trace: 5 Sep 2002 13:39:01 -0700, 209.66.107.17 Path: iad-read.news.verio.net!dfw-artgen!iad-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.spies.com!209.66.107.17 Xref: dfw-artgen alt.sys.pdp10:17743 Paul Repacholi writes: [about the KL10-PW] > That is the CPU of the KL10-RE? If so, then it was known about during > the Fall 83 DECUS. The KL10-PW is the CPU of the 1095 and 2065; that is what distinguishes them from the 1091 and 2060. Earlier "model B" CPUs (KL10-PV) could be upgraded to the KL10-PW by replacing some CPU modules (about seven of them, IIRC), and making a few backplane wiring changes. The KL10-PW-specific modules can be recognized by the fact that they have module numbers of the form M-85x (three digits), versus M-85xx (four digits) for all other KL10 CPU modules. This was an interesting reversal of the earlier trend in the PDP-8/e and PDP-11 to replace older Mxxx modules with new improved designs designated Mxxxy.