Turbo Pascal Wikipedia article - 8080 support

[Lawrence Woodman]

Hello,

I've been trying to clarify whether Turbo Pascal ran on an 8080 on the
Wikipedia page for TP:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Pascal


There seems to be some problem providing evidence that it required a z80,
in particular finding a secondary source for this.

Its talk page contains the discussion at the following points:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turbo_Pascal#Turbo_Pascal_never_supported_the_8080
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turbo_Pascal#I_don't_want_to_get_in_the_middle_of_this,_but...


There is one user in particular who states that his TP v3.05 runs on an
8080 and therefore is pretty persistent in ensuring that the article
states that it will run on an 8080.

I have of course run TP v1, v2 and v3 on 8080 machines and none of them
work because they all require a z80. However, original research isn't
allowed on Wikipedia.

I think Turbo Pascal was pretty important and warrants the effort to get
the Wikipedia page correct. Can anyone contribute to the page or provide
a suitable source that can resolve the issue one way or another?



Best wishes


Lorry

---
Image Viewers on CP/M
https://techtinkering.com/articles/image-viewers-on-cpm/

[hl351ge]

Wikipedia is sort of "broken" in the way that some peers insist on their
personal - weird - opinions. They regularly undo changes to "their
personal" articles even if they correct provable wrong statements. I
have long given up fightihng alternative facts and realities in
Wikipedia, therefore.

And yes, you are completely right that Turbo Pascal, at least 3.0x,
demands a Z80. I have disassembled and analyzed it; no chance at all to
run it with an 8080/8085. It not only compiles to certain Z80-only
instructions; it also requires both the two register sets as well as the
two index registers. Even with a disassembled listing and some Z80 macro
set that could mimic certain Z80 ops (like djnz) in 8080 code it is
impossible to convert the stuff to a (much larger) 8080 code base.

-hl

Post by Lawrence Woodman
Hello,
I've been trying to clarify whether Turbo Pascal ran on an 8080 on the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Pascal
There seems to be some problem providing evidence that it required a z80,
in particular finding a secondary source for this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turbo_Pascal#Turbo_Pascal_never_supported_the_8080
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turbo_Pascal#I_don't_want_to_get_in_the_middle_of_this,_but...
There is one user in particular who states that his TP v3.05 runs on an
8080 and therefore is pretty persistent in ensuring that the article
states that it will run on an 8080.
I have of course run TP v1, v2 and v3 on 8080 machines and none of them
work because they all require a z80. However, original research isn't
allowed on Wikipedia.
I think Turbo Pascal was pretty important and warrants the effort to get
the Wikipedia page correct. Can anyone contribute to the page or provide
a suitable source that can resolve the issue one way or another?
Best wishes
Lorry
---
Image Viewers on CP/M
https://techtinkering.com/articles/image-viewers-on-cpm/

[Lawrence Woodman]

Post by hl351ge
Wikipedia is sort of "broken" in the way that some peers insist on their
personal - weird - opinions. They regularly undo changes to "their
personal" articles even if they correct provable wrong statements. I
have long given up fightihng alternative facts and realities in
Wikipedia, therefore.

True, I've seen this before where it seems to become more about ego than
establishing the truth. I know of a number of articles now on Wikipedia
that are just plainly wrong, but either I or others have given up trying
to correct them.

Post by hl351ge
And yes, you are completely right that Turbo Pascal, at least 3.0x,
demands a Z80. I have disassembled and analyzed it; no chance at all to
run it with an 8080/8085. It not only compiles to certain Z80-only
instructions; it also requires both the two register sets as well as the
two index registers. Even with a disassembled listing and some Z80 macro
set that could mimic certain Z80 ops (like djnz) in 8080 code it is
impossible to convert the stuff to a (much larger) 8080 code base.

That's the silly thing about this. It is clear that the versions of TP
floating around the internet will not work on an 8080 and is demonstrable
today. The proposal that there is a release of TP v3.05 that is able to
run on an 8080 is so unlikely. However, without sufficient sources it is
difficult to prove the point.


Best wishes


Lorry

---
Image Viewers on CP/M
https://techtinkering.com/articles/image-viewers-on-cpm/

[John Crane]

Post by Lawrence Woodman

Post by hl351ge
Wikipedia is sort of "broken" in the way that some peers insist on their
personal - weird - opinions. They regularly undo changes to "their
personal" articles even if they correct provable wrong statements. I
have long given up fightihng alternative facts and realities in
Wikipedia, therefore.

True, I've seen this before where it seems to become more about ego than
establishing the truth. I know of a number of articles now on Wikipedia
that are just plainly wrong, but either I or others have given up trying
to correct them.

Post by hl351ge
And yes, you are completely right that Turbo Pascal, at least 3.0x,
demands a Z80. I have disassembled and analyzed it; no chance at all to
run it with an 8080/8085. It not only compiles to certain Z80-only
instructions; it also requires both the two register sets as well as the
two index registers. Even with a disassembled listing and some Z80 macro
set that could mimic certain Z80 ops (like djnz) in 8080 code it is
impossible to convert the stuff to a (much larger) 8080 code base.

That's the silly thing about this. It is clear that the versions of TP
floating around the internet will not work on an 8080 and is demonstrable
today. The proposal that there is a release of TP v3.05 that is able to
run on an 8080 is so unlikely. However, without sufficient sources it is
difficult to prove the point.
Best wishes
Lorry
---
Image Viewers on CP/M
https://techtinkering.com/articles/image-viewers-on-cpm/

Yes, I realized long ago that 'community driven knowledge' can devolve
into mob-rule very easily. Too many ill-educated over-zealous types out
there.

On to the real topic... While I have not spent the time to disassemble
the TP code; I took a more pragmatic (and faster) approach - try running
all the CP/M versions on an 8080 CP/M machine.

The verdict? Definitely a NO GO. Same binaries ran fine on a Z80 CP/M
system.
-J

[John Crane]

Post by John Crane

Post by Lawrence Woodman

Post by hl351ge
Wikipedia is sort of "broken" in the way that some peers insist on their
personal - weird - opinions. They regularly undo changes to "their
personal" articles even if they correct provable wrong statements. I
have long given up fightihng alternative facts and realities in
Wikipedia, therefore.

True, I've seen this before where it seems to become more about ego than
establishing the truth.  I know of a number of articles now on Wikipedia
that are just plainly wrong, but either I or others have given up trying
to correct them.

Post by hl351ge
And yes, you are completely right that Turbo Pascal, at least 3.0x,
demands a Z80. I have disassembled and analyzed it; no chance at all to
run it with an 8080/8085. It not only compiles to certain Z80-only
instructions; it also requires both the two register sets as well as the
two index registers. Even with a disassembled listing and some Z80 macro
set that could mimic certain Z80 ops (like djnz) in 8080 code it is
impossible to convert the stuff to a (much larger) 8080 code base.

That's the silly thing about this.  It is clear that the versions of TP
floating around the internet will not work on an 8080 and is demonstrable
today. The proposal that there is a release of TP v3.05 that is able to
run on an 8080 is so unlikely.  However, without sufficient sources it is
difficult to prove the point.
Best wishes
Lorry
---
Image Viewers on CP/M
https://techtinkering.com/articles/image-viewers-on-cpm/

Yes, I realized long ago that 'community driven knowledge' can devolve
into mob-rule very easily.  Too many ill-educated over-zealous types out
there.
On to the real topic... While I have not spent the time to disassemble
the TP code; I took a more pragmatic (and faster) approach - try running
all the CP/M versions on an 8080 CP/M machine.
The verdict? Definitely a NO GO.  Same binaries ran fine on a Z80 CP/M
system.
-J

Unless, of course, everyone here is referring to a mythological
unreleased version.

All the marketing material, and order forms I have state options of CPM
Z80 and MSDOS. Including going all the way back to version 1.0. So it's
fair to say that in the public, there was never an 8080 version, or at
least one that was not marketed. Any why would there be one? By that
time, almost all CPM machines were running Z80's and as the
disassemblers here can attest, the code uses some of the Z80 exclusive
op codes for better performance. Why maintain another codebase for a
practically non-existent market? Makes no economic sense.

[Lawrence Woodman]

Post by John Crane
Unless, of course, everyone here is referring to a mythological
unreleased version.
All the marketing material, and order forms I have state options of CPM
Z80 and MSDOS. Including going all the way back to version 1.0. So it's
fair to say that in the public, there was never an 8080 version, or at
least one that was not marketed. Any why would there be one? By that
time, almost all CPM machines were running Z80's and as the
disassemblers here can attest, the code uses some of the Z80 exclusive
op codes for better performance. Why maintain another codebase for a
practically non-existent market? Makes no economic sense.

You are correct, it makes little or no sense and is highly unlikely. The
problem is that the person stating that he has an 8080 version and is
reverting changes away from this position is very insistent and won't
accept that it requires a Z80 unless a secondary source can be found. I
accept that original research isn't allowed by Wikipedia as a source and
therefore we are a little stuck. I and others have been able to find a
few secondary sources but they have not been found to be acceptable for
various reasons.

I wouldn't even be surprised if he now recognises that his memory is not
as reliable as he first thought but doesn't want to admit it for fear of
losing face.


Best wishes


Lorry

---
Image Viewers on CP/M
https://techtinkering.com/articles/image-viewers-on-cpm/

[dxforth]

Post by Lawrence Woodman
...
The
problem is that the person stating that he has an 8080 version and is
reverting changes away from this position is very insistent and won't
accept that it requires a Z80 unless a secondary source can be found. I
accept that original research isn't allowed by Wikipedia as a source and
therefore we are a little stuck. I and others have been able to find a
few secondary sources but they have not been found to be acceptable for
various reasons.

You might try contacting Anders Hejlsberg who I imagine would be pleased
to correct the record. Better yet, get your friend to do it.

[Lawrence Woodman]

Post by dxforth

...
The problem is that the person stating that he has an 8080 version and
is reverting changes away from this position is very insistent and
won't accept that it requires a Z80 unless a secondary source can be
found. I accept that original research isn't allowed by Wikipedia as a
source and therefore we are a little stuck. I and others have been
able to find a few secondary sources but they have not been found to be
acceptable for various reasons.

You might try contacting Anders Hejlsberg who I imagine would be pleased
to correct the record. Better yet, get your friend to do it.

Thanks, that's a great idea. However, it wouldn't preclude the possibility
that Borland made an 8080 version available later, even if it is highly
unlikely. This has turned out to be surprisingly difficult to resolve. I
thought once I had pointed out the mistake on Wikipedia, it would be easy
to correct, but alas that hasn't been the case.

Best wishes


Lorry

---
Image Viewers on CP/M
https://techtinkering.com/articles/image-viewers-on-cpm/

[dxforth]

Post by Lawrence Woodman

Post by dxforth

...
The problem is that the person stating that he has an 8080 version and
is reverting changes away from this position is very insistent and
won't accept that it requires a Z80 unless a secondary source can be
found. I accept that original research isn't allowed by Wikipedia as a
source and therefore we are a little stuck. I and others have been
able to find a few secondary sources but they have not been found to be
acceptable for various reasons.

You might try contacting Anders Hejlsberg who I imagine would be pleased
to correct the record. Better yet, get your friend to do it.

Thanks, that's a great idea. However, it wouldn't preclude the possibility
that Borland made an 8080 version available later, even if it is highly
unlikely.

Anders did work for Borland in the period such a thing would have been
considered.

Post by Lawrence Woodman
This has turned out to be surprisingly difficult to resolve. I
thought once I had pointed out the mistake on Wikipedia, it would be easy
to correct, but alas that hasn't been the case.

It should be easy given *no provenance* exists for the claim/speculations
that an 8080 version existed. What does exist is the generally accepted
view that a Z80 was required, supported by binaries and Borland's own
'Catalog of All Borland Products' which may be found at the end of the
following, and states the Z80 as a minimum requirement:

http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/borland/turbo_pascal/The_Turbo_Pascal_Tutor_1985.pdf

[Lawrence Woodman]

Post by dxforth
It should be easy given *no provenance* exists for the claim/speculations
that an 8080 version existed. What does exist is the generally accepted
view that a Z80 was required, supported by binaries and Borland's own
'Catalog of All Borland Products' which may be found at the end of the
http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/borland/turbo_pascal/The_Turbo_Pascal_Tutor_1985.pdf

Thanks for that link. I've added it to the sources on the talk page.

One problem is that he says that software would often just mention Z-80
as a requirement even when it would support an 8080 to avoid confusing
users as the Z-80 had become so prevalent. The other problem is that
he says that as the Wikipedia page has stated that TP supports the 8080
for over 10 years without challenge that this is the established
consensus and has to be proved otherwise to change this.

The main reason I'm persisting with this is that I'm coming across
all sorts of interesting articles along the way and am quite enjoying
the detective work involved because of the constraints on evidence
that Wikipedia enforces.


Best wishes


Lorry

---
Image Viewers on CP/M
https://techtinkering.com/articles/image-viewers-on-cpm/

[John Crane]

Post by Lawrence Woodman

Post by John Crane
Unless, of course, everyone here is referring to a mythological
unreleased version.
All the marketing material, and order forms I have state options of CPM
Z80 and MSDOS. Including going all the way back to version 1.0. So it's
fair to say that in the public, there was never an 8080 version, or at
least one that was not marketed. Any why would there be one? By that
time, almost all CPM machines were running Z80's and as the
disassemblers here can attest, the code uses some of the Z80 exclusive
op codes for better performance. Why maintain another codebase for a
practically non-existent market? Makes no economic sense.

You are correct, it makes little or no sense and is highly unlikely. The
problem is that the person stating that he has an 8080 version and is
reverting changes away from this position is very insistent and won't
accept that it requires a Z80 unless a secondary source can be found. I
accept that original research isn't allowed by Wikipedia as a source and
therefore we are a little stuck. I and others have been able to find a
few secondary sources but they have not been found to be acceptable for
various reasons.
I wouldn't even be surprised if he now recognises that his memory is not
as reliable as he first thought but doesn't want to admit it for fear of
losing face.
Best wishes
Lorry
---
Image Viewers on CP/M
https://techtinkering.com/articles/image-viewers-on-cpm/

Hey Lorry,

Easy peasy... have him send me his files and I'll try to run them on my
8080 CPM system today. :)

-John

[Lawrence Woodman]

Post by John Crane

Post by Lawrence Woodman

Post by John Crane
Unless, of course, everyone here is referring to a mythological
unreleased version.
All the marketing material, and order forms I have state options of CPM
Z80 and MSDOS. Including going all the way back to version 1.0. So it's
fair to say that in the public, there was never an 8080 version, or at
least one that was not marketed. Any why would there be one? By that
time, almost all CPM machines were running Z80's and as the
disassemblers here can attest, the code uses some of the Z80 exclusive
op codes for better performance. Why maintain another codebase for a
practically non-existent market? Makes no economic sense.

You are correct, it makes little or no sense and is highly unlikely.

The

Post by John Crane

Post by Lawrence Woodman
problem is that the person stating that he has an 8080 version and is
reverting changes away from this position is very insistent and won't
accept that it requires a Z80 unless a secondary source can be found.

I

Post by John Crane

Post by Lawrence Woodman
accept that original research isn't allowed by Wikipedia as a source and
therefore we are a little stuck. I and others have been able to find a
few secondary sources but they have not been found to be acceptable for
various reasons.
I wouldn't even be surprised if he now recognises that his memory is not
as reliable as he first thought but doesn't want to admit it for fear of
losing face.

Easy peasy... have him send me his files and I'll try to run them on my
8080 CPM system today. :)

Thanks for the offer John. I've already asked him to make the files
available but he doesn't appear to have the drives to read the disks
anymore. I'm trying a different tactic at the moment, so we'll see if
that bares fruit.

People on this group have been really responsive to this problem, however
unfortunately most of the responses would constitute 'original research'
in the eyes of Wikipedia which isn't allowed as a source. I'm really
looking for a secondary source, perhaps a sort of retrospective that
states that TP didn't support the 8080. I feel I'm getting closer but
am not quite there yet.

Best wishes


Lorry

---
Image Viewers on CP/M
https://techtinkering.com/articles/image-viewers-on-cpm/

[John Crane]

Post by Lawrence Woodman

Post by John Crane

Post by Lawrence Woodman

Post by John Crane
Unless, of course, everyone here is referring to a mythological
unreleased version.
All the marketing material, and order forms I have state options of

CPM

Post by John Crane

Post by Lawrence Woodman

Post by John Crane
Z80 and MSDOS. Including going all the way back to version 1.0. So

it's

Post by John Crane

Post by Lawrence Woodman

Post by John Crane
fair to say that in the public, there was never an 8080 version, or at
least one that was not marketed. Any why would there be one? By that
time, almost all CPM machines were running Z80's and as the
disassemblers here can attest, the code uses some of the Z80 exclusive
op codes for better performance. Why maintain another codebase for a
practically non-existent market? Makes no economic sense.

You are correct, it makes little or no sense and is highly unlikely.

The

Post by John Crane

Post by Lawrence Woodman
problem is that the person stating that he has an 8080 version and is
reverting changes away from this position is very insistent and won't
accept that it requires a Z80 unless a secondary source can be found.

I

Post by John Crane

Post by Lawrence Woodman
accept that original research isn't allowed by Wikipedia as a source

and

Post by John Crane

Post by Lawrence Woodman
therefore we are a little stuck. I and others have been able to find a
few secondary sources but they have not been found to be acceptable for
various reasons.
I wouldn't even be surprised if he now recognises that his memory is

not

Post by John Crane

Post by Lawrence Woodman
as reliable as he first thought but doesn't want to admit it for fear

of

Post by John Crane

Post by Lawrence Woodman
losing face.

Easy peasy... have him send me his files and I'll try to run them on my
8080 CPM system today. :)

Thanks for the offer John. I've already asked him to make the files
available but he doesn't appear to have the drives to read the disks
anymore. I'm trying a different tactic at the moment, so we'll see if
that bares fruit.
People on this group have been really responsive to this problem, however
unfortunately most of the responses would constitute 'original research'
in the eyes of Wikipedia which isn't allowed as a source. I'm really
looking for a secondary source, perhaps a sort of retrospective that
states that TP didn't support the 8080. I feel I'm getting closer but
am not quite there yet.
Best wishes
Lorry
---
Image Viewers on CP/M
https://techtinkering.com/articles/image-viewers-on-cpm/

It seems to me...
That in cases of 'unlikely' claims, it's up to the claimant to provide
support for his claim.

What was the brand and model of machine he used? Do we have an image of
the labels of the master disks he used? Perhaps if you research the
available disk formats sold by Borland, you can find one that was an
8080 machine, or not. And it would be an 'official' document from
Borland stating which specific machines were supported.

-John

[Lawrence Woodman]

Post by John Crane
It seems to me...
That in cases of 'unlikely' claims, it's up to the claimant to provide
support for his claim.

His defence is essentially that the Wikipedia page has stated for the
last 10 years, without challenge, that an 8080 is supported so that is
the established consensus and therefore evidence needs to be provided to
go against that consensus.

Post by John Crane
What was the brand and model of machine he used? Do we have an image of
the labels of the master disks he used? Perhaps if you research the
available disk formats sold by Borland, you can find one that was an
8080 machine, or not. And it would be an 'official' document from
Borland stating which specific machines were supported.

The disk label idea is great and I have requested a picture of it.

Best wishes


Lorry

---
Image Viewers on CP/M
https://techtinkering.com/articles/image-viewers-on-cpm/

[dxforth]

Post by Lawrence Woodman
...
That's the silly thing about this. It is clear that the versions of TP
floating around the internet will not work on an 8080 and is demonstrable
today. The proposal that there is a release of TP v3.05 that is able to
run on an 8080 is so unlikely. However, without sufficient sources it is
difficult to prove the point.

It's fair enough that no matter how many Z80 TP's one tests is no proof
there didn't exist an 8080 version (it just reduces the odds). But neither
is one person's claim of having experienced an 8080 version, proof. While
the TP 3 manual doesn't expressly say 'Z80 only', the CP/M-80 section does
reference the Z80 in interrupt handling/instructions and the use of LDIR in
sample code.

[hl351ge]

Post by dxforth

... That's the silly thing about this.  It is clear that the versions
of TP
floating around the internet will not work on an 8080 and is demonstrable
today. The proposal that there is a release of TP v3.05 that is able to
run on an 8080 is so unlikely.  However, without sufficient sources it is
difficult to prove the point.

You can never prove the non-existence of something, only the presence.
This is why all those "proofs" that God exists, or does not exist, are
effectively nonsense.

But this does not make both alternatives evenly weighted. There are
several downloadable TP packages that all show that they require a Z80.
One could counter by providing a package that will work on a real or
emulated 8080/8085, though. But so far there is only rumour about some
3.05 that would do it. This way, unicorns are likewise real.

Post by dxforth
It's fair enough that no matter how many Z80 TP's one tests is no proof
there didn't exist an 8080 version (it just reduces the odds).  But neither
is one person's claim of having experienced an 8080 version, proof.  While
the TP 3 manual doesn't expressly say 'Z80 only', the CP/M-80 section does
reference the Z80 in interrupt handling/instructions and the use of LDIR in
sample code.

Maybe, in those days it wasn't normal to describe the system
requirements in detail, perhaps because the computer users at that time
had enough knowledge to *simply know* that TP requires a Z80.

The TP 3.0 manual at Bitsavers only once mentions Z80 in the section on
port access, but there is an advertising sheet appended to the PDF that
explicitly states that it will work on Z80 and 8086/808 only.

-hl

[Richard Deane]

Post by hl351ge

Post by dxforth

... That's the silly thing about this.  It is clear that the versions
of TP
floating around the internet will not work on an 8080 and is demonstrable
today. The proposal that there is a release of TP v3.05 that is able to
run on an 8080 is so unlikely.  However, without sufficient sources it is
difficult to prove the point.

You can never prove the non-existence of something, only the presence.
This is why all those "proofs" that God exists, or does not exist, are
effectively nonsense.
But this does not make both alternatives evenly weighted. There are
several downloadable TP packages that all show that they require a Z80.
One could counter by providing a package that will work on a real or
emulated 8080/8085, though. But so far there is only rumour about some
3.05 that would do it. This way, unicorns are likewise real.

Post by dxforth
It's fair enough that no matter how many Z80 TP's one tests is no proof
there didn't exist an 8080 version (it just reduces the odds).  But neither
is one person's claim of having experienced an 8080 version, proof.  While
the TP 3 manual doesn't expressly say 'Z80 only', the CP/M-80 section does
reference the Z80 in interrupt handling/instructions and the use of LDIR in
sample code.

Maybe, in those days it wasn't normal to describe the system
requirements in detail, perhaps because the computer users at that time
had enough knowledge to *simply know* that TP requires a Z80.
The TP 3.0 manual at Bitsavers only once mentions Z80 in the section on
port access, but there is an advertising sheet appended to the PDF that
explicitly states that it will work on Z80 and 8086/808 only.
-hl

The wikipedia entry which I read for Turbos Pascal (CP/M) said that only v1 worked on 8080, v2 and v3 require z80.

Richard

[Lawrence Woodman]

Post by Richard Deane
The wikipedia entry which I read for Turbos Pascal (CP/M) said that only
v1 worked on 8080, v2 and v3 require z80.

It doesn't at the moment, unless you're talking about the talk pages.
However, it may have in the past. In any case v1 requires a Z80 as well.


Best wishes


Lorry


---
Image Viewers on CP/M
https://techtinkering.com/articles/image-viewers-on-cpm/

[Udo Munk]

If one runs version 1 it already says for Z80:

TURBO Pascal version 1.00 [CP/M-80, Z80] - Serial # $$$$$$$$$$$$
Copyright (C) 1983 by BORLAND International Inc.

Nevertheless we can try to run it on a 8080 (cpmsim -8 -u), but:

D>turbo
E (6485) system: Op-code trap at 036a 28

28H is a JR Z,n instructions, which is Z80 only.

AFAIK there is no 8080 version, unless someone can show one that DOES run on the CPU.

[hl351ge]

[...]

Post by Richard Deane

Post by hl351ge
The TP 3.0 manual at Bitsavers only once mentions Z80 in the section on
port access, but there is an advertising sheet appended to the PDF that
explicitly states that it will work on Z80 and 8086/808 only.
-hl

The wikipedia entry which I read for Turbos Pascal (CP/M) said that only v1 worked on 8080, v2 and v3 require z80.
Richard

You can download a ZIP with version 1.0 from
http://www.z80.eu/pas-compiler.html, which when opened with some hex
editor will let you find the string at 0x1CD1:

TURBO Pascal version 1.00 [CP/M-80, Z80] - Serial # $$$$$$$$$$$$
Copyright (C) 1983 by BORLAND International Inc.

So v1 already mentions a Z80, and looking a bit deeper, one will also
find the typical LDIR and X/Y register references.

But of course, one could still believe in unicorns and insist that this
is not the "true" 1.0 version, and the real one will still run on 8080.

I am not surprised that Wikipedia is no valid source at all in any
scientific paper.

-hl

[Alan Laughton]

Post by hl351ge
[...]

Post by hl351ge
The TP 3.0 manual at Bitsavers only once mentions Z80 in the section on
port access, but there is an advertising sheet appended to the PDF that
explicitly states that it will work on Z80 and 8086/808 only.
-hl

The wikipedia entry which I read for Turbos Pascal (CP/M)  said that
only v1 worked on 8080, v2 and v3 require z80.
Richard

You can download a ZIP with version 1.0 from
http://www.z80.eu/pas-compiler.html, which when opened with some hex
TURBO Pascal version 1.00 [CP/M-80, Z80] - Serial # $$$$$$$$$$$$
Copyright (C) 1983 by BORLAND International Inc.
So v1 already mentions a Z80, and looking a bit deeper, one will also
find the typical LDIR and X/Y register references.
But of course, one could still believe in unicorns and insist that this
is not the "true" 1.0 version, and the real one will still run on 8080.
I am not surprised that Wikipedia is no valid source at all in any
scientific paper.
-hl

The TP Manual for v3 on Page 283 mentions the Z-80 :-

"Parameters
Parameters are transferred to procedures and functions via the Z-80
stack. Normally, this is of no interest to the programmer, as the machine
code generated by TURBO Pascal will automatically PUSH parameters
onto the stack before a call, and POP them at the beginning of the
subprogram."

[[e-mail]]

Post by Lawrence Woodman
Hello,
I've been trying to clarify whether Turbo Pascal ran on an 8080 on the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Pascal
There seems to be some problem providing evidence that it required a z80,
in particular finding a secondary source for this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turbo_Pascal#Turbo_Pascal_never_supported_the_8080
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turbo_Pascal#I_don't_want_to_get_in_the_middle_of_this,_but...
There is one user in particular who states that his TP v3.05 runs on an
8080 and therefore is pretty persistent in ensuring that the article
states that it will run on an 8080.
I have of course run TP v1, v2 and v3 on 8080 machines and none of them
work because they all require a z80. However, original research isn't
allowed on Wikipedia.
I think Turbo Pascal was pretty important and warrants the effort to get
the Wikipedia page correct. Can anyone contribute to the page or provide
a suitable source that can resolve the issue one way or another?
Best wishes
Lorry
---
Image Viewers on CP/M
https://techtinkering.com/articles/image-viewers-on-cpm/

The Wikipedia article in somewhat unclear in many aspects.
- For example the CP/M and MS-DOS and PC/DOS versions below version 4 are not clearly distinguished.
- The article should separate the 3 product lines below version 4.
- For example there was a generic MS-DOS version up to 3.01 (or 3.02?) and, at the same time the PC-DOS version, which was hardwired for IBM-PC systems.
- The generic MS-DOS version used terminal control sequences like the CP/M version, whereas the PC-DOS version used the IBM-BIOS video interrupts a(and dirct memeory access?).
- Turtle graphics was not available in the CP/M versions, because there was no general graphics hardware standard for these machines.
- The versions up to 3 seem to have no provision for TSR programs as the article states (mayve for the PC-DIS specific version?).
- Starting with version 4 (as far as I know) only the PC-DOS was developed further, requiring IBM-PC compatibility.

[Tony Nicholson]

Post by Lawrence Woodman
Hello,
I've been trying to clarify whether Turbo Pascal ran on an 8080 on the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Pascal

[snip]

From one of my old bookmarks there used to be a dissasembly
of TurboPascal 3 for CP/M online at a site called cirsovius.

I found it mirrored here -

https://mark-ogden.uk/mirrors/www.cirsovius.de/CPM/Projekte/Disassembler/TURBO.html

It definitely contains Z80 specific instructions. Have fun
converting it to 8080 :)

Tony

[dxforth]

Post by Tony Nicholson

Post by Lawrence Woodman
Hello,
I've been trying to clarify whether Turbo Pascal ran on an 8080 on the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Pascal

[snip]
From one of my old bookmarks there used to be a dissasembly
of TurboPascal 3 for CP/M online at a site called cirsovius.
I found it mirrored here -
https://mark-ogden.uk/mirrors/www.cirsovius.de/CPM/Projekte/Disassembler/TURBO.html
It definitely contains Z80 specific instructions. Have fun
converting it to 8080 :)
Tony

A disassembly encompassing several CP/M-80 versions is here:

https://www.memotech.franken.de/CPM80/

[Tom Lake]

Post by Lawrence Woodman
Hello,
I've been trying to clarify whether Turbo Pascal ran on an 8080 on the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Pascal
There seems to be some problem providing evidence that it required a z80,
in particular finding a secondary source for this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turbo_Pascal#Turbo_Pascal_never_supported_the_8080
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turbo_Pascal#I_don't_want_to_get_in_the_middle_of_this,_but...
There is one user in particular who states that his TP v3.05 runs on an
8080 and therefore is pretty persistent in ensuring that the article
states that it will run on an 8080.
I have of course run TP v1, v2 and v3 on 8080 machines and none of them
work because they all require a z80. However, original research isn't
allowed on Wikipedia.
I think Turbo Pascal was pretty important and warrants the effort to get
the Wikipedia page correct. Can anyone contribute to the page or provide
a suitable source that can resolve the issue one way or another?
Best wishes
Lorry
---
Image Viewers on CP/M
https://techtinkering.com/articles/image-viewers-on-cpm/

Could this be what they were talking about?
https://www.msx.org/forum/msx-talk/software/turbo-pascal-4-compatible-cross-compiler

[Lawrence Woodman]

Post by Tom Lake

Post by Lawrence Woodman
I've been trying to clarify whether Turbo Pascal ran on an 8080 on the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_Pascal

Could this be what they were talking about?
https://www.msx.org/forum/msx-talk/software/turbo-pascal-4-compatible-cross-compiler

It isn't unfortunately. However, thanks for posting that link, it looks
really interesting.

Best wishes


Lorry

---
Image Viewers on CP/M
https://techtinkering.com/articles/image-viewers-on-cpm/