Volume VIII started off pretty uneventfully, for a while. I did find another page (16.20.02.1) where a couple of gates have their internal connections brought to the edge of the sheet, but those are trivial to fix by adding “faux pins” to the gate definitions and using those on the sheet.
I continue to be somewhat surprised that I haven’t found very many connector errors – a testament to the value of verifying gate and signal use counts on each sheet.
Also, the number of ILD diagrams I have checked off as being completely tested in the CPU section is approaching closure. Of 65 such ILD diagrams, I have completely checked off the diagrams in all but 15 of them. (In addition I have quite a number of additional diagrams of the ILD ilk (i.e., drawn as positive logic with AND and OR gates, etc.).
Page 188.8.131.52 was a bit more interesting. On the surface, it is just a couple of latches. However, the corresponding diagrams on ILD figure 31 were in error. The outputs of these latches go to DOT-ed connection. While they are not like triggers in that they don’t “pull over” the output directly, they DO form part of the feedback loop for the latch, and thus can cause it to set (provided nothing else is keeping it reset). However, the engineer drawing the ILD didn’t take that behavior into account (and it did seem rather odd, just looking at the ILD, to have both a latch and a combinatorial group feeding the same output. ;))
In addition, on that same page, the latch comprised of the gates at 4E and 3E are unusual – the reset portion (4E) is a NAND gate, but at I first I thought that the set portion (3E) was NOR gate thinking that the engineer doing the ILD diagram did not spot it, which caused them to depict it as part of an “OR” to set the latch, when in fact those two inputs are effectively ANDed together.
However, when I ran into the same situation on page 184.108.40.206, the second use of card type YLH in my travels, I got suspicious and took a closer look at the circuit, which has a 3 diode DDTL (0-6V) *AND* circuit feeding an inverter/converter to SDRTL (-12V – 0V) – in other words, a NAND gate. This was actually the third card type where I had made this error – it caused me to go through all the card types I had interpreted as NOR gates to confirm that there were not any more such gaffes.
Page 220.127.116.11 had something else interesting. This is the Complement Latch page. There is also a related signal, “+B COMP ADD A” derived from that latch anded with “ADDER A CH USE T + C” (OR’ed with a couple of other things). The latch is set, among other ways, by the OR of a couple of signals “START COMPL ADD 1” or “START COMPL ADD 2”. Interestingly, “+B COMP ADD A” will also generate its output via (“START COMPL ADD 1” or “START COMPL ADD 2”) and that same “ADDER A CH USE T + C”. Since the effect of the OR part of this would also be setting the latch, it is in a sense redundant. I suspect that this might be in place get the +B COMP ADD A signal up just a tad quicker than the latch sets, by OR’ing it with the pair of signals that are also going to eventually to set the latch.
A “D’Oh” Moment
I had noticed in my travels that a number of signals end in asterisk or have an asterisk near the end. I had seen quite a number of them, particularly as inputs to DOT’ed connections on their destination sheets. But it wasn’t until I got to page 16.50.04.1 where what was logically an identical signal appeared with both a name without an asterisk and one with an asterisk (-B MPLY.MQ.B.B0 and -B MPLY.MQ.B.B0*) that I finally recognized what that actually meant – that those signals are indeed open collector outputs intended to be DOT’ed on their destination sheets. D’Oh. Sheesh – it took me two YEARS to catch on.
(Addendum: There are exceptions – probably when things were changed. Example: Page 17.13.06.1 generates signal “-S SET DOLLAR SIGN * EDIT”. However, this is a driven signal, not open collector and in most places, the “* EDIT” does not appear on the input side – only on page 18.104.22.168 does that signal appear with an asterisk – and it is not dotted. My guess is that originally there was an open collector variant, but they later found they did not need it.)
Signal Names Can Be Misleading
There are a lot of straight-forward if complex combinatorial sheets in this parcel of ALDs, and sometimes there is no corresponding ILD. In such cases I have been using the signal name to drive my test bench, but sometimes those signal names can be misleading. Case in point, on page 16.50.04.1 there is a signal name “-B MPLY.MQ.B.1.B0.BW” which implies Multiply OP and MQ latch and B Cycle and 1st Scan and B Channel 0 and B Channel wordmark. However, when I ran my test, it failed, because, looking at the ALD, it also incorporates the True Latch (usually represented at a “T” in the signal name dot sequence – but missing from this particular signal name.) I suppose that they added this factor somewhere during the design and testing phase, but didn’t want to bother renaming the signal to “-B MPLY.MQ.B.T.1.B0.BW”.
When a Space is NOT a Blank and vice-versa
Came across something interesting on the Edit Translator pages (17.11.*.1). These pages refer to “Blank” and “Space” as different characters. Say whaaaat? Fortunately, the ILD Figure 41.1 contained a hint: “NOT SPACE (NOT &)”. There are four BCD characters that have no number bits (bits 8, 4, 2 and 1 are all 0). “Blank” (no bits), – (Just a B Bit), Cent sign – which is also called “alternate or substitute blank” (just an A bit) and & – also known as “+” and, apparently, as “Space” (just the BA bits). I had been aware of the blank / alternate blank thing, because it appears in the principles of operation, but calling BA—- as anything but ampersand or “+” was a new one on me.
Keep on Learning, Learning, Learning
One of the fascinating things that has been going on throughout this entire project is learning to write test benches. Once I am through it all, I plan to post the generated VHDL on github, and this evolution will be very apparent. Ordinary VHDL of course, with signals, requires a flip flop/register/latch to remember state – they correspond to actual hardware logic signals. The IBM 1410 has a bunch of those latches, and some of them have “control” latches that remember something until the next major cycle comes around. What is more, often those control latches are hidden, i.e., their signals are not brought out on the ALD sheet. This presents a challenge in writing a test bench – because you need to know the state of that control latch from a previous iteration of the test vector to know whether the actual latch whose signal does appear as an ALD output ought to be. Even worse, some of these latches are in a latch loop – using the “visible” latch to “regenerate” the setting into the control latch until some kind of condition is satisfied. Up until today, I had been “remembering” that with code – which made writing the test bench both more intricate and complicated, and less complete as well. Enter another “D’Oh” moment: test benches can and do make use of VHDL variables, which, unlike signals, “remember” – they are like variables in most any other programming language. So, one can remember the *expected* state of the control latch, and then see if that results in the corresponding state of the “visible” latch on the next iteration. Better still, another variable enables the test bench to “remember” the state of the visible latch as well. This makes testing significantly easier and more thorough. The test bench for page 17.12.01.1 shows this new technique in practice. With this technique the latch testing on this page worked perfectly the first time – and was verified with the waveform trace in the simulator. BIG time saver here. Wish I had thought of it sooner.
(With apologies to Dory and Ellen DeGeneres. 😉 ).
-- The variable declarations, VHDL wrapper declarations, etc. etc. are not shown here... testName := "17.12.01.1 "; MS_LOGIC_GATE_B_1 <= '0'; MS_LOGIC_GATE_D_1 <= '0'; wait for 30 ns; MS_LOGIC_GATE_B_1 <= '0'; MS_LOGIC_GATE_D_1 <= '0'; wait for 30 ns; check1(PS_NOT_0_SUPPRESS,'0',testName,"+S ZS Reset"); check1(MS_NOT_0_SUPPRESS,'1',testName,"-S ZS Reset"); for tt in 0 to 2**10 loop tv := std_logic_vector(to_unsigned(tt,tv'Length)); d := tv(0); e := tv(1); f := tv(2); g := tv(3); h := tv(4); j := tv(5); k := tv(6); l := tv(7); m := tv(8); n := tv(9); g1 := g and h and k; g2 := g1 or (k and l) or m or n; g3 := d and e; g4 := (lastNotZSLatch and g2 and e) or g3 or (e and f and k); -- Note that g4 (gate 4) depends on the state from the previous iteration!! lastNotZS <= lastNotZSLatch; -- These two signals are just here so that I can see the variables on the "scope" waveform trace lastNotZSCtrlA <= lastNotZSCtrl; -- There declarations appear before this "code" nearer the top of the test bench and are not shown -- Reset Not 0 Suppress Latch MS_LOGIC_GATE_B_1 <= '0'; wait for 30 ns; MS_LOGIC_GATE_B_1 <= '1'; wait for 30 ns; check1(PS_NOT_0_SUPPRESS,'0',testName,"+S ZS Loop Reset"); check1(MS_NOT_0_SUPPRESS,'1',testName,"-S ZS Loop Reset"); -- If Not ZS Ctrl was set last iteration, then set Not ZS Latch now PS_LOGIC_GATE_C_1 <= '1'; wait for 30 ns; PS_LOGIC_GATE_C_1 <= '0'; wait for 30 ns; check1(PS_NOT_0_SUPPRESS,lastNotZSCtrl,testName,"+S ZS From Ctrl"); check1(MS_NOT_0_SUPPRESS,not lastNotZSCtrl,testName,"-S ZS From Ctrl"); -- Reset Not ZS Ctrl This should not affect Not ZS Latch MS_LOGIC_GATE_D_1 <= '0'; wait for 30 ns; MS_LOGIC_GATE_D_1 <= '1'; wait for 30 ns; check1(PS_NOT_0_SUPPRESS,lastNotZSCtrl,testName,"+S ZS From Ctrl Reset ZS Ctrl"); check1(MS_NOT_0_SUPPRESS,not lastNotZSCtrl,testName,"-S ZS From Ctrl Reset ZS Ctrl"); -- Remember the setting of the Not ZS Latch for the next iteration lastNotZSLatch := PS_NOT_0_SUPPRESS; -- Now maybe set Not ZS Ctrl PS_LAST_INSN_RO_CYCLE <= d; PS_LAST_LOGIC_GATE_1 <= e; PS_SIG_DIGIT <= f; PS_1ST_SCAN <= g; PS_NOT_CTRL_0 <= h; PS_E_OP_DOT_B_CYCLE_1 <= j; PS_E_OR_Z_DOT_2ND_SCAN_DOT_EXTENSION <= k; PS_BLK_0_PUNCT_OR_SIG_DIGIT <= l; MS_A_CYCLE <= not m; MS_3RD_SCAN <= not n; wait for 30 ns; -- Perhaps set Not ZS Ctrl -- Remember the *expected* state of Not ZS Ctrl for the next iteration lastNotZSCtrl := g4; -- Reset the signals before the next iteration PS_LAST_INSN_RO_CYCLE <= '0'; PS_LAST_LOGIC_GATE_1 <= '0'; PS_SIG_DIGIT <= '0'; PS_1ST_SCAN <= '0'; PS_NOT_CTRL_0 <= '0'; PS_E_OP_DOT_B_CYCLE_1 <= '0'; PS_E_OR_Z_DOT_2ND_SCAN_DOT_EXTENSION <= '0'; PS_BLK_0_PUNCT_OR_SIG_DIGIT <= '0'; MS_A_CYCLE <= '1'; MS_3RD_SCAN <= '1'; end loop;