From: Peter Flass on 8 Feb 2010 17:27
> On Feb 8, 2:42 am, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> You can add to that list:
> Thanks! This is doubly wonderful since not only do I love FPGA based
> retrocomputing but am also very interested in the history of computing
> of countries outside the better known US/UK stuff.
From the sound of the projects being done, it sounds like it's a
challenge to use FPGA to emulate even simple instruction sets, no?
From: Peter Flass on 8 Feb 2010 17:31
Al Kossow wrote:
> Personally, I'm very interested in seeing B5500 running again. I'm
> hoping the MCP tapes we have
> in the CHM archives are recoverable. I have scanned most of the software
> listings CHM has in the
> archives and put them up on bitsavers.
If not, you'd have to cob up some Algol compiler to cross-compile ESPOL,
and then bootstrap MCP, Algol, and ESPOL using that. Difficult, but
do-able, once the code gets OCR'd (or, having looked at the listings,
more likely re-keyed.)
From: Joe Pfeiffer on 8 Feb 2010 17:46
Peter Flass <Peter_Flass(a)Yahoo.com> writes:
> Jecel wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 2:42 am, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> You can add to that list:
>> Thanks! This is doubly wonderful since not only do I love FPGA based
>> retrocomputing but am also very interested in the history of computing
>> of countries outside the better known US/UK stuff.
> From the sound of the projects being done, it sounds like it's a
> challenge to use FPGA to emulate even simple instruction sets, no?
In the same sense that emulating them in TTL chips is a challenge --
it's a comparable task, but done by writing VHDL or Veriolog instead of
by using a wire-wrap gun.
If you really want to embed a simple computing core in an FPGA project,
they're available off-the-shelf in libraries and can just be stuck in as
needed. But that's not the goal of these projects.
As we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should
be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
and this we should do freely and generously. (Benjamin Franklin)
From: james on 8 Feb 2010 18:04
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:57:28 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt
|In comp.arch.fpga Eric Chomko <pne.chomko(a)comcast.net> wrote:
|> Has anyone created a copy machine of an old system using an FPGA? I
|> was wondering if it would be possible to take an entire SWTPC 6800 and
|> compile the schematics and have it run on an FPGA board.? Wouldn't
|> even have to be the latest Xylinx product, I suspect.
|I haven't done it yet, but I am interested. I have a Digilent
|Spartan3E board for that purpose. I think it is big enough for
|the whole system for many of those machines.
The XC3S500e is big enough to do most if not all.
From: glen herrmannsfeldt on 8 Feb 2010 18:22
In comp.arch.fpga james <bubba(a)bud.u> wrote:
> The XC3S500e is big enough to do most if not all.
Well, I have thought as far as the Sparcstation 1.
That might require a bigger FPGA.
Sun has released verilog code for more recent SPARC processors.
It is likely that those, along with the rest of an actual system,
would be too big for even the larger XC3S devices. Maybe the
Spartan 6 is bigger.
Another one to consider is the Macintosh Plus or SE. That is,
68000 based Mac. Also, 68010 or 68020 based Sun systems.