9 Nov
2015
9 Nov
'15
1:42 p.m.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Jay Jaeger <cube1 at charter.net> wrote:
On 11/8/2015 11:50 AM, Josh Dersch wrote:
Thanks, I should have thought to check the revision codes in the first
place. Looks like the Bitsavers docs are from revision C; I've been
running the paper-tape version that's on Bitsavers (
http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/bits/DEC/pdp11/papertapeimages…),
which is labeled as "maindec-11-dzqkc-e-pb" which looks like it should be
Revision E (which is fortunate!).
If you do have the ability to scan this, I'd love to see it.
Thanks,
Josh
Anyone have any experience with this particular diagnostic?
Thanks,
Josh
The version can normally be identified either by the file name or on the
paper tape if you are using a real paper tape. My guess is that the
version you are running does not match the PDF.
Some of us also have diagnostic listings of various versions, and have
some of them on Microfiche. Unfortunately, I do not seem to have a
listing for DZQKC (any revision). [It isn't missing - it isn't even
listed in the fiche index. :( ]
HOWEVER, I *DO* have a *paper* listing of revision E (among others).
The code starting at 16002 reads
016002 105737 177564 TSTB @#TPS
016006 100375 BPL .-4
016010 006237 177564 TSTB @#TPS
016014 000001 WAIT ; WAIT FOR FIRST INTERRUPT
The routine starts at 015734 and the comment is ";CHECK TTY INTERRUPT"
AND, the paper copy has a red stamp indicating that a change may be
required for it to operation.
LOC FROM TO
2266 200 340
14146 200 340
16164 5227 4737
16166 0 160
160 - 5227
162 - 0
164 - 1375
166 - 207
So, please provide either the complete file name you loaded (if you are
loading from RX, hard disk, DECTape, etc., or the complete information
on the paper tape and we should at least be able to help you figure out
if they match, or not, and whether or not someone has a listing that
matches and can tell you what the error might mean, and perhaps provide
a scan to you (and bitsavers).
JRJ