On 4/11/11 7:36 PM, Jerome H. Fine wrote:
>> SIMH also does the same thing, although I have
a problem with the screen
>> display since SIMH does not have built-in emulation for the VT100 (or at
>> least the last time I used SIMH, it did not).
>
> Urr? This is not the responsibility of a processor emulator. At least
> it isn't on any sane platform.
....
SIMH (the
PDP-11 part of it) spits the characters out to its
controlling terminal as it receives them from the emulated PDP-11's
console (addr 777566) serial port. As all common CLI access programs
(xterm/gnome-terminal/etc under most Unices including OS X,
additionally Terminal.app and iTerm.app under OS X) all speak ANSI by
default, you get the correct behavior even on the console.
I don't know if the ability of the VT100 to switch character sets for the
Application Keypad is part of ANSI support. Please clarify.
...
Understood. Again I agree. But I am curious, why has
SIMH dropped
what little support it did have for the Application Keypad on the VT100?
Also, why has some eager beaver not stepped up to the plate and developed
an option for SIMH to provide that support for RT-11 fellows like myself?
We're talking about very different things. I will try to explain
what I mean.
SIMH doesn't "support" specific keys or specific terminal emulations
at all, because that's outside its scope. It's very much like saying a
PDP-11/23 (for example) "supports" a VT100, or a PDP-11/23 supports PF
keys, or some other terminal function. It doesn't...it has serial
ports, and the OS (as you know) squirts bytes in and out of those serial
ports, and what the terminal or the OS (or the app software for that
matter) has nothing to do with the fact that the computer is, in this
example, a PDP-11/23.
A PDP-11/23 "has support for" a VT100's PF keys if a VT100 terminal
(or a clone) is plugged into it. In exactly this same way, SIMH "has
support for" PF keys if a VT100 terminal is "plugged into" it.
Say I start a terminal program like "gnome-terminal", which is a
common terminal program on Linux and Solaris machines. In that terminal
window, I get a shell prompt. I start SIMH, which creates a virtual
PDP-11 whose default console port (777566) is logically "connected to" a
terminal...not a hardware VT100, but the instance of the
"gnome-terminal" program. It speaks ANSI codes and mostly implements a
VT100, so <esc>[2J will clear the screen, <esc>[H homes the cursor, etc.
All of these functions are completely outside the scope of SIMH. If,
say, I boot RSTS/E on that virtual PDP-11, do SET TERM/DEV=VT100", and I
fire up EDT, then tell EDT to "SET MODE CHANGE", the first thing that
happens (more or less) is that EDT sends <esc>[2J to clear the screen.
SIMH never sees this...or, more correctly, it sees those four bytes
written to 777566, and squirts them through the emulated serial port
untouched. At that point, they are no longer the responsibility of
SIMH. It's up to the "terminal" that is "connected" to this
virtual
PDP-11 to understand what those bytes mean and what to do with them.
If I had started SIMH under a terminal program that only understands
the control codes of, say, an LSI ADM-3A, that EDT session would look
like gibberish.
In this way, I can start SIMH under any sort of terminal (iTerm under
OS X has wonderful full-VT-keypad emulation) and have things work the
way I want them to, for any desired configuration. I can even start it
under a pseudo-terminal that has no display, but watches for patterns
sent from SIMH and sends responses accordingly, as if they'd been typed
by a human. (an "expect" script, for anyone into such things)
What you are (or seem to be) talking about is starting a PDP-11
emulator that somehow opens its own window, thus creating a virtual
terminal of sorts, and that terminal is responsible for interpreting the
control codes, and handling key events and translating them to the
appropriate bytes to send to the emulated PDP-11's emulated serial port.
This is certainly a reasonable setup, but it locks you into one
specific configuration that may or may not be what you want. A car and
an oven may be a handy combination sometimes, but they perform different
tasks, and only having a car with an oven, or only having an oven in the
car, might sometimes be very limiting and inconvenient.
SIMH, to my knowledge, has never done this on any of its native
platforms. I've not spoken with Bob Supnik about this, but if it did in
fact do this on its Windows port, and it doesn't any longer, it's likely
because Bob realized the above and removed that functionality. I
certainly would have. After all, if every PDP-11/23 came with a VT100
permanently and undetachably connected to its console port, what would a
person do if they wanted an LA36 on the console?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL