Audio Interrupt vector

38 views
Skip to first unread message

Matt Dillon

unread,
Nov 19, 1986, 5:16:12 AM11/19/86
to

Using an old version of Wack which has the 'ints' symbol, the
Audio interrupt vectors are 7,8,9, and 10 (scale 0-15). This corrosponds
with the definitions in HARDWARE/INTBITS.H. Read the manual page for
the EXEC SetIntVector() and AddIntServer().

References: RKM V2
HARDWARE/INTBITS.H
EXEC/INTERRUPTS.H

-Matt

Ted Griggs

unread,
Nov 20, 1986, 4:47:58 PM11/20/86
to
[]

Does the procedure and example program given in the ROM Kernal Manual
actually work?

Here is what I did:
wrote 68000 machine lang program that changes a check variable from
0 to 1 then rts.

set up the interrupt structure EXACTLY in the same manner as the RKM

called SetIntVector

I assume all went well because the call returned a pointer to the old
interrupt structure of name audio.device.

No interrupt occured when I started the dma (i.e. check var never changed)

I looked at intenar and bit 7 (for audio channel 0 or 2, depending where
one looks - but I was using all channels so it does not matter) was not set
(bit 14 set was so interrupts were enabled in general).


Okay, so what is wrong? Thanx.
Ted Griggs
ucbvax!buddy!c55-grig

va...@pttesac.uucp

unread,
Nov 21, 1986, 11:48:17 PM11/21/86
to
In article <10...@zen.BERKELEY.EDU> c55-...@buddy.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Ted Griggs) writes:
>[]
>
>Does the procedure and example program given in the ROM Kernal Manual
>actually work?

Hey, I'm getting tired of this misspelling all the time ^^^^^^.
It's spelled just like the popcorn colonels. Or is that Kolonels?
Or Colennels? Kurunals? Kernel?

g...@cbmvax.uucp

unread,
Nov 23, 1986, 6:02:01 PM11/23/86
to

You might as well get used to it. In the 8-bit Commodore world, local usage
has always had it spelled kernal. Given that a reasonable number of Amiga
users are coming from this environment, there is precious little chance of
stamping out this colloquialism.
--
George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!g...@seismo.css.GOV
Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)

Carolyn Scheppner

unread,
Nov 24, 1986, 7:05:53 PM11/24/86
to
In article <10...@zen.BERKELEY.EDU> c55-...@buddy.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Ted Griggs) writes:
>[]
(re: interrupt example)

>Does the procedure and example program given in the ROM Kernal Manual
>actually work?

I'm not sure which example you're talking about.

If you mean the Interrupt Server example (p 1-57 CBM RK, p 61 A-W Exec),
then it depends on which book you have. The version on p. 61-62 of
the Addison-Wesley Rom Kernel: Exec manual is OK as far as I know.
The text on Interrupts is also updated in that manual. But the version
in our older 1.1 Rom Kernel Manual (Vol. 1, p 1-57,58) is messed up.

The major problems are:

p.1-57 The two occurences of "sizeof(struct Interrupt *)" should be
"sizeof(struct Interrupt)" (no *). You want to allocate
(and free) an Entire Interrupt Structure NOT a Pointer to
one. Else you are poking values into mem you don't own.

p.1-58 In the assembler portion, I think that in this particular
example, the MOVE.L (A1),A0 should be MOVE.L A1,A0.



--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Carolyn Scheppner -- CBM >>Amiga Technical Support<<
UUCP ...{allegra,caip,ihnp4,seismo}!cbmvax!carolyn
PHONE 215-431-9180
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ted Griggs

unread,
Nov 25, 1986, 5:08:35 PM11/25/86
to
[]

I discovered the bug! (note "the" not "my")
I was compiling and assembling the program under Manx (tried both 16 & 32
bit ints..neither had a chance at working). I sadly had to compile and
assemble it with Lattice 1.0? to make it work.

My complaint with C on the Amiga is that of the two compilers: 1) Lattice
has 2 100K compilers and the slowest linker I have ever seen, and 2) Manx
compiles fast, link fast, and produces small code but on many occasions
produces incorrect code.

I have heard Lattice came out w. version 3.?? and a much faster linker.
I hope that this is true.

Ted Griggs
zen!buddy!c55-grig

Chuck McManis

unread,
Nov 26, 1986, 2:51:35 PM11/26/86
to
In article <11...@zen.BERKELEY.EDU>, c55-...@buddy.Berkeley.EDU (Ted Griggs) writes:
>
> ... edited stuff about bugs and such ...

> My complaint with C on the Amiga is that of the two compilers: 1) Lattice
> has 2 100K compilers and the slowest linker I have ever seen, and 2) Manx
> compiles fast, link fast, and produces small code but on many occasions
> produces incorrect code.
> I have heard Lattice came out w. version 3.?? and a much faster linker.
> I hope that this is true.
>

Yes it is true, I sent in my Lattice Update card and got my new compiler
on Monday. (about three weeks after they announced it on BIX) The update
cost $75, and included a new manual and the Lattice Text Management
utilities (grep, wc, splat, file, etc) All I need say is "get the update!"
Some initial reactions :

* New stuff with the compiler includes the TMU package as mentioned above,
a macro assember called asm (not MetaCompCo compatible), Blink 6.7 (that
wonderfully fast Alink compatible linker), and a completely rewritten
frontend 'lc'. New documentation includes the TMU manual and a new compiler
manual that is spiral bound (yea!) and more complete. Oh, and a zillion
new library routines are available too.

* Two things strike you about the compiler when you use it, first it is
much faster, and second the user interface is a lot 'cleaner'.

* New options to the lc command are -M to recompile only those files that
have been modified, and -L which automatically invokes the linker when
all compiles complete successfully. The compiler still doesn't recognize
control C during the phases, but if one of the modules in a multimodule
compile fails to compile you are given the option to exit.

* Two library routines that really stood out were the time routines
(unix compatible time(), asctime()) and the wild card expansion
routines for file names that can programmatically accept MS-dos
type wild cards or Amiga wildcards.

* And finally Fork() support. But only for programs that were originally
C sources. BCPL programs don't fork.

Highly reccomended.


--
--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcm...@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.

joh...@garfield.uucp

unread,
Nov 27, 1986, 2:55:24 PM11/27/86
to
[]
One problem I haven't seen mentioned (although if it is known and there is a
way around it, I'd like to hear about it!):

Manx printf doesn't like %f!

main()
{ float x=1;
printf("%f\n",x); }

causes an "f" to be printed when I run it through Manx. This problem cropped up
recently again, and I thought that it had happened before only when using 16
bit ints; however, when I used "+l" and c32.lib, it still wouldn't work.

Now I do have programs written where it *does* work, scanf's and printf's with
%f's all over the place. But I remember having problems with them then too, and
having to use +l to get them to work (which was of no help the other night).

The last several times that this has happened to me, I've always been a bit
tight for memory (about 145K free before invoking compiler), but I can't see
why that should make a difference, and even if that is the reason, it's still
a pretty strange bug.

The Manx documentation had nothing to say about this, other than that it
supported full Kernighan & Richie, and that double precision variables take
up 64 bits although only 32 are used. Kernighan & Richie also says %e is an
alternate floating point specifier, but using that just changed the "f" to
an "e" when the program was run. I also tried various combinations of
double, "%lf", "%le", cc +l, ln -lc32, etc, without success. When using "%lf"
it would accept the "l", but still print the "f", not take it as a parameter.

Thanks for any help!

John

joh...@garfield.uucp

unread,
Nov 28, 1986, 8:06:04 AM11/28/86
to
In article <30...@garfield.UUCP> joh...@garfield.UUCP (me) writes:
>
>main()
>{ float x=1;
> printf("%f\n",x); }
>
as an example of an improperly running program. It's since been pointed out
to me that technically this *should not* work, on a C compiler that plays
by the rules: it will try to assign the integer value 1 to a floating point
number. This has never caused me any problems with Lattice, or with the
compiler on our Unix system, and so I wasn't aware of it (haven't seen it in
Kernighan and Ritchie either).

So

main()
{ float x = 1.0;
printf("%f\n",x); }

should work, right? Wrong! I tried this too and again it just printed the
letter f. So please, no flood of replies saying "force it to float with a
decimal point!".

John

Howard Hull

unread,
Nov 29, 1986, 11:13:49 PM11/29/86
to
In article <30...@garfield.UUCP>, joh...@garfield.UUCP writes:
> Manx printf doesn't like %f!
>
> main()
> { float x=1;
> printf("%f\n",x); }
>
> causes an "f" to be printed when I run it through Manx.

Try using the linker string ln garbage.o -lm -lc -o a.out
instead of ln garbage.o -lc -lm -o a.out

you'll be amazed what a difference it makes. If you are doing 32 bit ints,
of course you'll use -lm32 -lc32 for the libraries.
Howard Hull
[If yet unproven concepts are outlawed in the range of discussion...
...Then only the deranged will discuss yet unproven concepts]
{ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!hull

Phil Staub

unread,
Nov 30, 1986, 3:26:59 AM11/30/86
to
In article <30...@garfield.UUCP> joh...@garfield.UUCP (John Russell) writes:
>One problem I haven't seen mentioned (although if it is known and there is a
>way around it, I'd like to hear about it!):
>
>Manx printf doesn't like %f!
>

He goes on to describe the problem and what he has tried to do to fix it.
Then:

>The Manx documentation had nothing to say about this, other than that it
>supported full Kernighan & Richie,

Have you looked at page 6 of the 3.20a release document, (mine is dated
March 3, 1986. I think thats probably the only one you'll find for 3.20a).

I won't go into detail, but you have to use the m.lib or m32.lib library,
and it must be searched before the c.lib or c32.lib library, e.g.:

ln file.o -lm -lc

Hope this helps.

Phil Staub P.O. Box 3500
Tektronix, Inc. Vancouver, Washington 98668
ISI Engineering M/S C1-904, (206) 253-5634
..tektronix!tekigm!phils
--
Phil Staub P.O. Box 3500
Tektronix, Inc. Vancouver, Washington 98668
ISI Engineering M/S C1-904, (206) 253-5634
..tektronix!tekigm!phils

Marco Papa

unread,
Nov 30, 1986, 4:55:23 PM11/30/86
to
> In article <11...@zen.BERKELEY.EDU>, c55-...@buddy.Berkeley.EDU (Ted Griggs) writes:
> >
> > ... edited stuff about bugs and such ...
> > My complaint with C on the Amiga is that of the two compilers: 1) Lattice
> > has 2 100K compilers and the slowest linker I have ever seen, and 2) Manx
> > compiles fast, link fast, and produces small code but on many occasions
> > produces incorrect code.
^^^^^^^^^

Yes, it is DEFINITELY true! We bought MANX C and recompiled A-Talk. Code size
went down from 145K (lattice C 3.03) to 99K (MANX 3.20a). The problem is
that when we sent the new version out to the beta testers we received
complaints of GURU meditations on the MANX version. This is with code that
works perfectly with Lattice, and we used the 32-bit integer option which
is supposed to allow complete porting of programs that use 32-bit integers
and libraries. We also tried beta MANX 3.30c but this version has at least
as many bugs as the current commercial version (3.20a). Telephone calls to
MANX tech support always result in "we will be coming out with the new update
in the fall", "maybe next month". We have ba

Dick Dunn

unread,
Nov 30, 1986, 8:36:14 PM11/30/86
to
| >>Does the procedure and example program given in the ROM Kernal Manual
| >Hey, I'm getting tired of this misspelling all the time ^^^^^^.
| You might as well get used to it. In the 8-bit Commodore world, local usage
| has always had it spelled kernal. Given that a reasonable number of Amiga
| users are coming from this environment, there is precious little chance of
| stamping out this colloquialism.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Hey, I could get tired of that
misspelling REAL fast. The form "colloquialism" is not an accepted
alternate spelling of "error".

It's bad enough to have spelling flames kicking around without having
someone DEFEND the fact that people don't know how to spell and refuse to
learn even the words that are basic to their work.
--
Dick Dunn {hao,nbires,cbosgd}!ico!rcd (303)449-2870
...Lately it occurs to me what a long, strange trip it's been.

rmar...@watmum.uucp

unread,
Dec 1, 1986, 12:15:44 AM12/1/86
to
In article <30...@garfield.UUCP> joh...@garfield.UUCP (John Russell) writes:
>
>main()
>{ float x=1;
> printf("%f\n",x); }
>
>should work, right? Wrong! I tried this too and again it just printed the
>letter f. So please, no flood of replies saying "force it to float with a
>decimal point!".
>
>John


Once you know all the details, this isn't really a problem, it's a feature.

In the runtime libraries, a large amount of the code to do a printf is
associated with printing formatted floating point numbers, however, this
code is not always used (I hardly ever use floating point in my C programs
for instance). Thus there are two versions of printf, one which doesn't
have the floating point code in it (that's the one in c.lib and c32.lib)
and one with the floating point code (m.lib and m32.lib (have I got those
names right? Well the math libraries... whatever they're called). To get
the version with the floating point in it, simply link with m.lib. Make sure
that it is first in the list of libraries (or before c.lib anyway) otherwise
you'll get the no %f version that's in the other library.


Like I said this is a feature (It's documented! Read the manual! All of it! )
It makes many programs quite a bit smaller...

-Rico

Gary Samad

unread,
Dec 1, 1986, 2:10:38 PM12/1/86
to
In article <30...@garfield.UUCP>, joh...@garfield.UUCP writes:
> []
> One problem I haven't seen mentioned (although if it is known and there is a
> way around it, I'd like to hear about it!):
>
> Manx printf doesn't like %f!

One of the ways that Manx has cut down the minimum size of a program is by
cutting the %f handling out of the standard printf in the c library. To get
%f handling back, simply link with -lm BEFORE your -lc in your link statement.
This will bring in a different copy of printf that DOES handle %f!

by the way, the -lm means "link with the math library" where the other printf
is kept.

Gary

Carolyn Scheppner

unread,
Dec 5, 1986, 6:19:06 PM12/5/86
to
In article <1...@ico.UUCP> r...@ico.UUCP (Dick Dunn) writes:
(RE: "Kernal" VS "Kernel")

>
>It's bad enough to have spelling flames kicking around without having
>someone DEFEND the fact that people don't know how to spell and refuse to
>learn even the words that are basic to their work.

Here's my 2 cents. Correct spelling is crucial in programs.
But I don't care how you spell "Kernel" in a mail message. And I
hope you don't care how I spell it. I know that I have confused
our 8-bit "Kernal" with our Amiga "Kernel" on occasion. I worked
with the "Kernal" for so many years that "Kernel" just doesn't
look right.

In fact, both spellings are starting to look strange. I guess I've
been looking at them too long. I'll start looking at some other
word --- like BltMaskBitMapRastPort.

Tomas Rokicki

unread,
Dec 8, 1986, 11:13:14 PM12/8/86
to
In article <2...@sbcs.UUCP>, ro...@sbcs.UUCP (Root) writes:
> If memory serves, I believe I read somewhere that Amiga
> does their development using the (expensive) GreenHills compiler system
> that also runs on a SUN. Why suffer the slings and arrows of Manx,
> Lattice, etc if you have access to a Sun workstation??
> Rick Spanbauer

Depends on your application. For development, I *want* the smaller
and faster code that using 16-bit ints allows. Manx with 16-bit
ints still generates code far smaller than on any 68000 compiler I
have run across, including the Sun and Greenhills compiler.
Also, Manx is a nice enough system that development on the machine
is less painful than downloading stuff to test.

-tom

Chuck McManis

unread,
Dec 9, 1986, 1:24:46 PM12/9/86
to
In article <2...@sbcs.UUCP>, ro...@sbcs.UUCP (Root) writes:
> ... If memory serves, I believe I read somewhere that Amiga

> does their development using the (expensive) GreenHills compiler system
> that also runs on a SUN. Why suffer the slings and arrows of Manx,
> Lattice, etc if you have access to a Sun workstation??
>
> Rick Spanbauer

Well, for one thing my Amiga is at home and my Sun Workstation is at
work. (Which would really cut into the compile/test time) And second because
obviously Sun doesn't pay me to do Amiga programs, when I use this
50K workstation I try to maximize the benefit to my employer. Now if
I could buy a Workstation for use at home, why would I want an Amiga?

Richard Miner

unread,
Dec 9, 1986, 7:16:16 PM12/9/86
to
In article <2...@sbcs.UUCP> ro...@sbcs.UUCP (Root) writes:
(Talks about a Sun development environment)
>...development using a system similar to this for several months now, and
>am convinced that cross development is the _only_ way to go for serious
>development. Why suffer the slings and arrows of Manx,
>Lattice, etc if you have access to a Sun workstation??
> Rick Spanbauer

A few months ago I would have agreed with you Rick, but today I think the
ideal Amiga development environment would be native: A turbo Amiga w/2.5meg,
just about as fast as the new Sun/Apollo workstation and much faster then
older models; The latest Manx or Lattice compiler, they are both shaping
up quite well; hard disk; Ethernet and NFS, or ArcNet (call Ameristar in NJ);
A recoverable ram disk ,I wish I could get Perrys over the self for my C-Ltd
ram; Zorro expansion box for ethernet, memory, 68020, and home grown
hardware; And the most important ingrediant, a second Amiga to test your
code on so your development machine does not have to be rebooted after
each compile when you visit the Guru.

All of this equipment is still less then a Sun or Apollo, and look at all
the toys you get to play with! In addition to the above being close to
a Sun environment of today; as soon as source level debuggers are around
for Manx or Lattice C the Amiga will become even more attractive.

Don't get me wrong, I think Suns and Apollo's are great workstations I use
them both and am trying to them and my Amiga's all talking. I would
rather do Amiga specific development on the Amiga. To bad they can't
programmed at a more abstract level. Just call OpenLibrary on all of
them, forget CrossCompiling they could be object compatable;

This is getting longer then I want to but one last note. The ideal developmet
enviroment in the eyes of EA, as presented at the developers conference in
thier talk "Developing a Workstation Environment", was a 10MHz IBM-AT :-( .
Its worked for them but ugg...


--
Rich Miner ...!wanginst!ulowell!miner
ULowell, Center for Productivity Enhancement (617) 452-5000 x2693
HAL hears the Amiga9000 series is not selling. "Please explain Dave. Why
aren't Amiga9000's selling?" Bowman hesitates, "You aren't IBM compatible."

George Robbins

unread,
Dec 10, 1986, 5:58:09 AM12/10/86
to
In article <3...@pttesac.UUCP> va...@pttesac.UUCP (Marnix van Ammers) writes:
>
>I'm not sure, but from all the postings on this subject I *think*
>that what has happened is that Commodore mispelled "kernel" in
>some documentation for the C-64 and that the mispelling has since
>become accepted within Commodore and within the C-64 user community.
>
>Is that it?
>

You got it - I don't know if the mispelling was intentional or accidental,
but it is pretty firmly imbedded in the C-64 world...

Carolyn Scheppner

unread,
Dec 10, 1986, 5:58:49 AM12/10/86
to
In article <3...@pttesac.UUCP> va...@pttesac.UUCP (Marnix van Ammers) writes:
>In article <10...@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> car...@cbmvax.UUCP (Carolyn Scheppner) writes:
>>hope you don't care how I spell it. I know that I have confused
>>our 8-bit "Kernal" with our Amiga "Kernel" on occasion. I worked
>
>*Your* 8-bit "Kernal" ?

>
>I'm not sure, but from all the postings on this subject I *think*
>that what has happened is that Commodore mispelled "kernel" in
>some documentation for the C-64 and that the mispelling has since
>become accepted within Commodore and within the C-64 user community.
>
>Is that it?

Funny. I always thought it was the other way around. We have some
sort of trademark on "Kernal".

Dave Haynie

unread,
Dec 10, 1986, 5:59:27 AM12/10/86
to
>
> *Your* 8-bit "Kernal" ?
>
> I'm not sure, but from all the postings on this subject I *think*
> that what has happened is that Commodore mispelled "kernel" in
> some documentation for the C-64 and that the mispelling has since
> become accepted within Commodore and within the C-64 user community.
>
> Is that it?
>
> Marnix

Actually, I believe the spelling of the word in relation to 8-bit CBM
computers has been around since the first PET 2001 machines, the jump
table in the C64 is virtually the same thing as in those early PETs. Its
certainly true that the word, either "kernel" or "kernal", was far from
an everyday word back in 1977 or so. Maybe it was a misspelling or just
to be different. Or maybe it was an effort to create a uniquely
"computerese" word to serve that purpose; maybe "kernel" was just a little
too corny :-).

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh

"Laws to supress tend to strengthen what they would prohibit.
This is the fine point on which all the legal professions of
history have based their job security."
-Bene Gesserit Coda

These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they may be yours too.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

hig...@cbmvax.uucp

unread,
Dec 10, 1986, 8:40:55 PM12/10/86
to
In article <30...@garfield.UUCP> joh...@garfield.UUCP (John Russell) writes:
>One problem I haven't seen mentioned (although if it is known and there is a
>way around it, I'd like to hear about it!):
>
>Manx printf doesn't like %f!
>
>main()
>{ float x=1;
> printf("%f\n",x); }
>
>causes an "f" to be printed when I run it through Manx.
>...

>Thanks for any help!
>
>John

This may have already been answered (I've been off the net for over a week),
but I think your problem is that you're not linking to m.lib FIRST.

There are two versions of printf in the Manx libraries, and the one you
want (which supports printing floating point numbers) is in m.lib. The
other is in c.lib and doesn't support floating point and so is much smaller.
Since not all programs need floating point, this setup is smart, but it
requires that if you want the floating point version of printf() you must
link as follows:

ln foo.o -lm -lc

NOTE: -lm comes first to force the linker to resolve the external reference
of printf in foo.o in m.lib and not c.lib.

Hope this helps,

Paul.

Disclaimer: I work for myself, and my opinions are my own.

Bill D'Camp

unread,
Dec 11, 1986, 12:31:11 PM12/11/86
to
[]

I don't know about the association of "kernal" with Commodore, someone
said it went back to 1977, but the Unix "kernel" has been spelled that
way since at least 1975, probably longer, but I can't remember.

--
_ /|
\`o_O'
( ) Aachk! Phft!
U

(borrowed from B.C. & Zot)

Opinion? I thought you said onions.


UUCP: crash!pnet01!billd
ARPA: crash!pnet01!billd@nosc

wag...@utcs.uucp

unread,
Dec 11, 1986, 6:21:04 PM12/11/86
to

In article <10...@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> car...@cbmvax.UUCP (Carolyn Scheppner) writes:
>In article <3...@pttesac.UUCP> va...@pttesac.UUCP (Marnix van Ammers) writes:
>>
>>*Your* 8-bit "Kernal" ?
>>
>>I'm not sure, but from all the postings on this subject I *think*
>>that what has happened is that Commodore mispelled "kernel" in
>>some documentation for the C-64 and that the mispelling has since
>>become accepted within Commodore and within the C-64 user community.
>>
>>Is that it?
>
> Funny. I always thought it was the other way around. We have some
>sort of trademark on "Kernal".
>--
Oh, Carolyn! Usually, I'm impressed by your contributions, but today I'm
surprised at you. Kernel is a standard Operating System term. It's a standard
in every computer science reference book on the subject. Do you really think
that Commodore originally spelled it right and every one else mis-spelled it?

Michael

Andy Finkel

unread,
Dec 12, 1986, 10:36:31 AM12/12/86
to
In article <1986Dec11....@utcs.uucp> wag...@utcs.UUCP (Michael Wagner) writes:
>In article <10...@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> car...@cbmvax.UUCP (Carolyn Scheppner) writes:
>>In article <3...@pttesac.UUCP> va...@pttesac.UUCP (Marnix van Ammers) writes:

>>>*Your* 8-bit "Kernal" ?

>>sort of trademark on "Kernal".

>Oh, Carolyn! Usually, I'm impressed by your contributions, but today I'm

>surprised at you. Kernel is a standard Operating System term. It's a standard
>in every computer science reference book on the subject. Do you really think
>that Commodore originally spelled it right and every one else mis-spelled it?
>
>Michael

Let me try to bring the discussion to a close (since I was there at the time).
Kernel is indeed a standard OS term. KERNAL was/is Commodore's name
for our 8 bit Operating System. The mispelling was invented by Bob Russell
on his first written description of the Kernal, then was spread through an
unsuspecting company by me, among others. The mispelling was intentional,
you couldn't expect to call your operating system the kernel, right ?
(we may even have a trademark on Kernal, thanks to our lawyer way back then.)

Anyway, what's done is done, now you know, so perhaps we can talk about
other things ?

I know...let's discuss the misuse of the term AmigaDos to describe the
entire Amiga OS. That should be interesting, yea, that's the ticket.
We'll talk about that.

andy finkel
--

andy finkel
Commodore/Amiga
{ihnp4|seismo|allegra}!cbmvax!andy
or pyramid!amiga!andy

Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share.

I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.

"Never make anything simple and efficient when it can be complex and wonderful."

Carolyn Scheppner

unread,
Dec 12, 1986, 2:34:32 PM12/12/86
to
In article <1986Dec11....@utcs.uucp> wag...@utcs.UUCP (Michael Wagner) writes:
>>--
>Oh, Carolyn! Usually, I'm impressed by your contributions, but today I'm
>surprised at you. Kernel is a standard Operating System term. It's a standard
>in every computer science reference book on the subject. Do you really think
>that Commodore originally spelled it right and every one else mis-spelled it?

Don't be ridiculous. Whether Commodore's initial misspelling "Kernal"
was a mistake or intentional, it is the name that Commodore used for
the core OS routines in every subsequent machine until the Amiga.
If the Amiga "Kernel" and docs had been written in West Chester, it
probably would have been called "Kernal".

Sean Casey

unread,
Dec 14, 1986, 2:29:31 AM12/14/86
to
In article <11...@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> an...@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes:
>(we may even have a trademark on Kernal, thanks to our lawyer way back then.)

I've heard the term "kernal" used long before the Amiga or even the Mac
hit the drawing boards. I may (probably) even be able to find proof of
this that would stand up in court. Don't count your chickens.

Sean
--
===========================================================================
Sean Casey UUCP: cbosgd!ukma!sean CSNET: se...@ms.uky.csnet
ARPA: ukma!se...@anl-mcs.arpa BITNET: se...@UKMA.BITNET

Marnix van Ammers

unread,
Dec 14, 1986, 2:43:58 PM12/14/86
to
In article <53...@ukma.ms.uky.csnet> se...@ukma.ms.uky.csnet (Sean Casey) writes:
>In article <11...@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> an...@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) writes:
>>(we may even have a trademark on Kernal, thanks to our lawyer way back then.)
>
>I've heard the term "kernal" used long before the Amiga or even the Mac
>hit the drawing boards. I may (probably) even be able to find proof of
>this that would stand up in court. Don't count your chickens.

Well, at least we've ascertained that "kernal" has to do
with the C-64, not with the Amiga. So what's the proper term for
the Amiga's kernel? I think "colonal" would kind of cute.
No? Then how about "kurnel"?

I wonder if anyone has got a trademark on "recieve" ...

Did I pass the 50%-rule water mark yet? No?

Ah, just for the hell of it, what *is* the definition of "kernel"
as applied to operating systems. Does it include all the system
calls, just a subset, or what? Maybe the kernel is that part of the
operating system which may never be swapped out.

--
Marnix (ain't unix!) A. van\ Ammers Work: (415) 545-8334
Home: (707) 644-9781 CEO: MAVANAMMERS:UNIX
UUCP: {ihnp4|ptsfa}!pttesac!vanam CIS: 70027,70

j...@iuvax.indiana.edu

unread,
Dec 16, 1986, 2:32:00 PM12/16/86
to

The Kernel is pretty much the system call interface down to the
device interface.

sh...@sfsup.uucp

unread,
Dec 30, 1986, 5:47:15 PM12/30/86
to
The term kernel goes back at least as far as the first versions of UN*X,
which is quite some time. I doubt that it is trademarked. It has been in
common usage too long.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages