Re: Fluke compiler software

<x-flowed>

I have a 9100 as well, just never turned it on.... It's just that I am at
the edge of my competence with software here and was thinking that at least
emulating the 9010 would get some folks thinking further along the
way...guess I should bring the 9100 home and start working on it. I am
expecting a Logic Analyzer to show up soon and then I will have the codes
from the pod(s) at least...

Plus I am trying to run a business and raise two kids...just like the rest
of us.

John :-#)#

At 09:52 AM 04/04/2002 -0500, Corey Stup wrote:

> > Yes the idea is to figure out how to communicate with the PODs & emulate
> > what the base does, not necesarily emulate the base.
>Well, thats what I thought from the initial talks, but then when the
>focus was shifted to emulating 6520's and Z80's, it seemed to drift...
>
> > Heck if we are thinking emulating bases then why aren't we focused on the
> > bigger brother, 9100 series? I only know of one list reader that even has
> > one of these beast.
>I have 2 9100's. Its a FAR more advanced system, especially
>when coupled with all the extra physical hardware testing. I have
>a really nice automated setup for testing the 6532's on Gottlieb
>Sys80 boards. I can clip a 6502 pod "over top" the micro, and run
>test code to exersize the 6532 I/O ports, reading all 40 pins state,
>real time, using the 9100 I/O adaptors.
>
>If we are going to emulate ANY Fluke hardware, the 9100 makes
>far more sense. Its 68000 based, with OS/9 running as a simple
>RTOS. Fluke has some really powerful software included with the
>system, including a trace diagnosis system that follows a decision
>tree.
>
> > Well we need to know the basics first, and there is no know
> documentation on
> > the inner workings of the communication between the base & the pods. Once
> > this is know, documented & available we can then concentrate on which
> way to
> > go.
> >
> > I belive it is also important to make steady progress rather than trying to
> > think of every enhancement we want and then build it. Just look at the
> > Arcade ICE or RatBox projects if you want to see what that thinking
> > produces.
>I agree. I just don't see what you even "get" in the end by
>emulating the 9010A exactly. Figuring out the communication
>between the base and the pod is not dependant on getting a
>emulated 9010A setup on a PC.
>
>I don't consider this feature-creep at all. Just a better direction, in
>my opinion.

</x-flowed>
Received on Thu Apr 04 08:31:04 2002