The 6800 had an "HCF" instruction. The 6502 had several KIL instructions that
had similar behaviour. I don't think either of these made any permanent damage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halt_and_Catch_Fire_(computing)
https://www.pagetable.com/?p=39
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_poke
>
Nope. If you believe this mythical instruction exists, you are the
person that gets to spend the time digging up the references to it.
I've been writing assembly on the 6502 since the early 1980s and I have
never managed to damage one when my programs went off the rails, which
they did on many
On 11/1/24 14:55, CAREY SCHUG via cctalk wrote:
Wikipedia lists models 60, 62, 64, and 66 (never shipped)
and 65 and 67 as shipped, but no 63.
since I don't remember 65s, I assume not many of them made it out the door?
Uh, no. The 360/65 was a very popular model, QUITE (4X) a
step up from the
Wikipedia lists models 60, 62, 64, and 66 (never shipped)
and 65 and 67 as shipped, but no 63.
since I don't remember 65s, I assume not many of them made it out the door?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/360
--Carey
> On 11/01/2024 1:12 PM CDT Van Snyder via cctalk wrote:
>
>
> On
On Fri, 2024-11-01 at 11:01 -0700, David Barto via cctalk wrote:
> > > The 6502 had a HCF (halt and catch fire) undocumented
> > > instruction.
> > > I forget the opcode and if you knew what you were doing you could
> > > get the instruction executed on the chip using any assembler.
Early in 196
Nope. Read the documentation for the chip. Turns out that the HCF instruction
basically sent the chip into an internal loop which would render parts of it
unusable after about 30-45 seconds.
Tried it once and the chip got hot. Very very hot and then just stopped working.
David
> On Nov
David Barto wrote:
>
> The 6502 had a HCF (halt and catch fire) undocumented instruction.
> I forget the opcode and if you knew what you were doing you could get the
> instruction executed on the chip using any assembler.
>
> Security through obscurity back in the 70s.
> The chip was advanced
Glad I never tried it. 😊
The 6502 had a HCF (halt and catch fire) undocumented instruction.
I forget the opcode and if you knew what you were doing you could get the
instruction executed on the chip using any assembler.
Security through obscurity back in the 70s.
The chip was advanced enough that the DOD wanted to avo
On 10/31/24 19:02, Jon Elson via cctalk wrote:
On 10/31/24 09:35, Donald Whittemore via cctalk wrote:
If I remember right I was told back in the early 70s by our IBM CE
that physical damage could be done to our model 30 or 40 if we ran a
program that did an Assembler instruction, B * For
remember, core memory is destructive read out. to read the bits you erase them
and have to rewrite them.
I doubt the B * running for 30 seconds, then cancel the job would be bad, but
if you started it up Friday and it ran all weekend? every time you demagnetize
and re-magnetize those cores, p
On 10/31/24 09:35, Donald Whittemore via cctalk wrote:
If I remember right I was told back in the early 70s by our IBM CE that
physical damage could be done to our model 30 or 40 if we ran a program that
did an Assembler instruction, B *For those non-Assembler people that is an
instruction
On Thu, Oct 31, 2024 at 9:35 AM Donald Whittemore via cctalk
wrote:
> If I remember right I was told back in the early 70s by our IBM CE that
> physical damage could be done to our model 30 or 40 if we ran a program that
> did an Assembler instruction, B *For those non-Assembler people that
On 10/31/24 10:39, Paul Koning wrote:
> I could imagine it in PPs, also in 6400 machines since they don't have an
> "instruction stack" so instruction fetches would go to memory. For all of
> those you'd end up hammmering a single memory cell at high speed, and each
> time you do that you get
On 10/31/24 10:39 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
On Oct 31, 2024, at 11:41 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
wrote:
On 10/31/24 07:35, Donald Whittemore via cctalk wrote:
If I remember right I was told back in the early 70s by our IBM CE that
physical damage could be done to our model 30 or 4
> On Oct 31, 2024, at 11:41 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 10/31/24 07:35, Donald Whittemore via cctalk wrote:
>> If I remember right I was told back in the early 70s by our IBM CE that
>> physical damage could be done to our model 30 or 40 if we ran a program that
>> did an Ass
On 10/31/24 07:35, Donald Whittemore via cctalk wrote:
> If I remember right I was told back in the early 70s by our IBM CE that
> physical damage could be done to our model 30 or 40 if we ran a program that
> did an Assembler instruction, B *For those non-Assembler people that is
> an instr
17 matches
Mail list logo
