Reproducing old machines with newer technology (Re: PDP-12 at the RICM)
cube1 at charter.net
Tue Jul 14 18:29:51 CDT 2015
The reason I choose to use VHDL (or Verilog), both of which really *are*
IEEE standards: future portability and broadness of access across
multiple manufacturer's devices in the future, and compatibility with
The 1130 is more modern than the machines I am interested in. While
there are still several 1401's our there in the wild I am aware of no
IBM 1410's anywhere, unless IBM has one squirreled away somewhere.
On 7/14/2015 11:16 AM, ben wrote:
> On 7/14/2015 9:46 AM, Jay Jaeger wrote:
>> My work has been using structural models, at the gate level, in VHDL
>> (Verilog would be fine, too, of course). Individual components (for
>> example, a piece of an IBM SMS card, or in my existing case, gates made
>> available to student engineers that were actually individual
>> gates/chunks of DTL chips) get little behavioral models. As I
>> mentioned, so far what I have done is reproduce and test a 12 bit
>> computer designed in an electrical engineering course on logic/computer
>> design. In August I plan on publishing my experience on a website.
>> I would note that I also see value in the behavioral approach, which
>> really would be considerably more detailed than what you get form SimH.
>> The IBM 1410 cycle-level simulator I have written is closer to what one
>> might get from a behavioral model, but even that is not quite so
>> Using the structural / gate level techniques, one does run into some
>> issues, most of which have (or will probably have) solutions:
>> 1) R/S latches composed of gates in a combinatorial loop. The problems
>> this causes are several, including the latch getting folded into the
>> look up tables for gates which use the signal, and issues when one
>> brings such a signal out to an I/O pin to feed to a logic analyzer,
>> which can cause problems to appear and disappear. My experience is that
>> one can add a D flip flop after the RS latch. This typically works
>> because at 50 Mhz, it adds only 20 ns delay, which is comparable to gate
>> delays these old machines typically had.
>> 2) One-shots. I haven't had to address this one yet, but I am sure
>> that I will. I expect that one can simply use a counter to handle it -
>> no big deal at all.
>> 3) Flip flops which are clocked from combinatorial signals. These tend
>> to cause timing/glitch issues. For example, in one case the
>> combinatorial output was a zero-check on a counter. Since the counter
>> flip flops did not all change at exactly the same time, that signal
>> could glitch during the simulated machines master clock edge. They
>> respond well to the same general solution as #1 - stick a D flip flop
>> between the combinatorial output and the clock input. In the case I
>> mentioned, that gave the signal an entire 50 Mhz clock period to settle
>> And of course, getting the detailed information one needs to develop
>> such a model can be a challenge. Fortunately for the older IBM
>> machines, IBM produced ALDs - Automated Logic Diagrams - which I hope
>> will generally have enough information.
>> My experience on FPGA forums during the development of my 12 bit
>> computer implementation was mixed. I got some helpful comments, but the
>> majority of folks were not helpful, and instead preferred to bash me for
>> not redoing the entire machine design using FPGA's the way these
>> particular folks felt was "the only right way" to use them. Bah.
> I have felt the right way is NOT to use VHDL or VERLOG sadly. I use
> altera and using AHDL is the best for me as it cleanest language so far.
> FPGA's have never been standard logic, so why force standards, if you
> can not even agree on gates latches and flipflops in fpgas.
> Here is the link you have been waiting for, IBM 1130 in FPGA and in the
> PS: Don't use blog format for the web site, they are a pain to read
> or search if what you want is more than few years old.
More information about the cctalk