www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Building DMD on OpenBSD

reply Anonymous <anonymous example.com> writes:
I did some googling (well, duckduckgoing) and found a few posts 
on this forum indicating that this could work. So I gave it a try 
and followed https://wiki.dlang.org/Building_under_Posix
The build failed because src/posix.mak in the dmd repo was trying 
to download 
http://downloads.dlang.org/releases/2.x/2.072.2/dmd.2.072.2.openbsd.tar.xz
which doesn&apos;t exist. What do I do now?

OTOH it&apos;s a good thing that the build failed. When I saw 
http:// instead of https:// in the console output I went to check 
what the makefile was doing and - wait for it - it was trying to 
download an executable from the internet and run it. I 
couldn&apos;t believe my eyes. I mean, you sure can use an 
unencrypted channel but then you need some kind of cryptographic 
signature to verify the downloaded file. I tried the above with 
2.074.1 (the latest stable) but the trunk version has this too.
Jul 16 2017
next sibling parent reply Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Sunday, 16 July 2017 at 19:00:32 UTC, Anonymous wrote:

 I did some googling (well, duckduckgoing) and found a few posts 
 on this forum indicating that this could work. So I gave it a 
 try and followed https://wiki.dlang.org/Building_under_Posix
 The build failed because src/posix.mak in the dmd repo was 
 trying to download 
 http://downloads.dlang.org/releases/2.x/2.072.2/dmd.2.072.2.openbsd.tar.xz
which doesn&apos;t exist. What do I do now?

 OTOH it&apos;s a good thing that the build failed. When I saw 
 http:// instead of https:// in the console output I went to 
 check what the makefile was doing and - wait for it - it was 
 trying to download an executable from the internet and run it. 
 I couldn&apos;t believe my eyes. I mean, you sure can use an 
 unencrypted channel but then you need some kind of 
 cryptographic signature to verify the downloaded file. I tried 
 the above with 2.074.1 (the latest stable) but the trunk 
 version has this too.


Auto-bootstrapping is __only__ used if no host compiler is found 
on the system.
This should only happen on esoteric platforms (not intended as an 
offense) like yours.
There are usually plenty of ways to get your host compiler safely:

http://dlang.org/download.html

The simplest one on a Posix system is:

curl -fsS https://dlang.org/install.sh | bash -s dmd

If you have GPG, it will verify the integrity of the downloaded 
archive.

In any case, I submitted a PR to use SSL for AUTO_BOOSTRAP:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/7000
Jul 16 2017
parent reply Anonymous <anonymous example.com> writes:
On Sunday, 16 July 2017 at 19:47:20 UTC, Seb wrote:

 Auto-bootstrapping is __only__ used if no host compiler is 
 found on the system.
 This should only happen on esoteric platforms (not intended as 
 an offense) like yours.


So I should use digger then? I looked through its repo briefly 
and I can&apos;t really tell if I&apos;m gonna run into the same 
issue or not.
I guess another option is to build GDC and then use it to build 
DMD.


 In any case, I submitted a PR to use SSL for AUTO_BOOSTRAP:

 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/7000


Thanks.
Jul 16 2017
parent reply Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Sunday, 16 July 2017 at 21:05:53 UTC, Anonymous wrote:

 On Sunday, 16 July 2017 at 19:47:20 UTC, Seb wrote:

 Auto-bootstrapping is __only__ used if no host compiler is 
 found on the system.
 This should only happen on esoteric platforms (not intended as 
 an offense) like yours.


 So I should use digger then? I looked through its repo briefly 
 and I can&apos;t really tell if I&apos;m gonna run into the 
 same issue or not.
 I guess another option is to build GDC and then use it to build 
 DMD.


Yes digger could work, but it's written in D and you would need 
to build it on a different OS.
How about simply building the bootstrap binary yourself then?
I think 2.067 is the last version that's still written in C++:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/tree/2.067

PS: Do you manually insert the HTML codes? They are escaped.
Jul 16 2017
parent reply Anonymous <anonymous example.com> writes:
On Sunday, 16 July 2017 at 21:37:12 UTC, Seb wrote:

 How about simply building the bootstrap binary yourself then?
 I think 2.067 is the last version that&apos;s still written in 
 C++:

 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/tree/2.067


Yep, that should work. I believe this should be put somewhere on 
the wiki because otherwise bootstrapping is hard to figure out.


 PS: Do you manually insert the HTML codes? They are escaped.


I noticed them added after a redirect to the captcha page 
(I&apos;m using tor).
Jul 16 2017
parent reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Sunday, 16 July 2017 at 22:40:18 UTC, Anonymous wrote:

 On Sunday, 16 July 2017 at 21:37:12 UTC, Seb wrote:

 How about simply building the bootstrap binary yourself then?
 I think 2.067 is the last version that&apos;s still written in 
 C++:

 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/tree/2.067


 Yep, that should work. I believe this should be put somewhere 
 on the wiki because otherwise bootstrapping is hard to figure 
 out.


The wiki does explain that you need a bootstrap compiler, it 
tells you what will be done.  Unfortunately, it doesn't explain 
that the auto-bootstrap will not work for OpenBSD, because we 
don't put out builds for that OS.  The only BSD we regularly put 
out builds for is FreeBSD.  I will update the wiki page to say 
that.

As for bootstrapping, it appears that we have not documented it 
anywhere on the wiki, I'll add some info on that.  The last dmd 
we released that was written in C++ was 2.067, for which you can 
still check out the branch.  You'd have to build that bootstrap 
compiler 2.067 first, then worry about the latest dmd.

Since we don't regularly build for OpenBSD, it's possible that 
support has slipped behind.  Usually, it's as easy as adding 
OpenBSD to a couple more #ifdefs, but sometimes you need to adapt 
the dmd source also for a rarely used platform like OpenBSD.
Jul 17 2017
parent reply Anonymous <anonymous example.com> writes:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 at 09:58:42 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 The last dmd we released that was written in C++ was 2.067, for 
 which you can still check out the branch.  You&apos;d have to 
 build that bootstrap compiler 2.067 first, then worry about the 
 latest dmd.

 Since we don&apos;t regularly build for OpenBSD, it&apos;s 
 possible that support has slipped behind.  Usually, it&apos;s 
 as easy as adding OpenBSD to a couple more #ifdefs, but 
 sometimes you need to adapt the dmd source also for a rarely 
 used platform like OpenBSD.


I managed to build the bootstrap dmd without any trouble. Btw the 
wiki page doesn&apos;t mention that the dependency is *GNU* Make 
which is typically installed as gmake on BSDs. Then I tried 
building the new dmd and got (in dmd/src):

CC=c++ dmd -of../generated/openbsd/release/64/idgen ddmd/idgen.d
Error: cannot find source code for runtime library file 
&apos;object.d&apos;
        dmd might not be correctly installed. Run &apos;dmd 
-man&apos; for installation instructions.
        config file: /etc/dmd.conf
Specify path to file &apos;object.d&apos; with -I switch
gmake[1]: *** [posix.mak:437: 
../generated/openbsd/release/64/idgen] Error 1

Now I&apos;m trying to figure out the /etc/dmd.conf business. I 
found ini/freebsd/bin64/dmd.conf in the 2.067 dmd folder so I 
guess I&apos;ll start from there. Thanks for the help so far.
Jul 17 2017
parent reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 at 16:45:28 UTC, Anonymous wrote:

 On Monday, 17 July 2017 at 09:58:42 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 The last dmd we released that was written in C++ was 2.067, 
 for which you can still check out the branch.  You&apos;d have 
 to build that bootstrap compiler 2.067 first, then worry about 
 the latest dmd.

 Since we don&apos;t regularly build for OpenBSD, it&apos;s 
 possible that support has slipped behind.  Usually, it&apos;s 
 as easy as adding OpenBSD to a couple more #ifdefs, but 
 sometimes you need to adapt the dmd source also for a rarely 
 used platform like OpenBSD.


 I managed to build the bootstrap dmd without any trouble. Btw 
 the wiki page doesn&apos;t mention that the dependency is *GNU* 
 Make which is typically installed as gmake on BSDs. Then I 
 tried building the new dmd and got (in dmd/src):

 CC=c++ dmd -of../generated/openbsd/release/64/idgen ddmd/idgen.d
 Error: cannot find source code for runtime library file 
 &apos;object.d&apos;
        dmd might not be correctly installed. Run &apos;dmd 
 -man&apos; for installation instructions.
        config file: /etc/dmd.conf
 Specify path to file &apos;object.d&apos; with -I switch
 gmake[1]: *** [posix.mak:437: 
 ../generated/openbsd/release/64/idgen] Error 1

 Now I&apos;m trying to figure out the /etc/dmd.conf business. I 
 found ini/freebsd/bin64/dmd.conf in the 2.067 dmd folder so I 
 guess I&apos;ll start from there. Thanks for the help so far.


Unfortunately, dmd has not kept porters in mind and hasn't kept 
the C++ version updated, or kept a workflow that enables easy 
bootstrapping:

http://forum.dlang.org/thread/xgtbpcvbikxlilanrzqa forum.dlang.org

You will have to build druntime and phobos for 2.067 also and 
collect it all in a different location, which you could invoke to 
bootstrap a new dmd.  You may run into issues related to D/C++ 
integration when building the latest dmd, as that hasn't been 
tested on OpenBSD, only FreeBSD.

Why do you want the latest dmd on OpenBSD?  I ask because it will 
likely require some work, though likely not a lot.
Jul 17 2017
parent reply Anonymous <anonymous example.com> writes:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 at 17:18:23 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 Unfortunately, dmd has not kept porters in mind and hasn&apos;t 
 kept the C++ version updated, or kept a workflow that enables 
 easy bootstrapping:

 http://forum.dlang.org/thread/xgtbpcvbikxlilanrzqa forum.dlang.org

 You will have to build druntime and phobos for 2.067 also and 
 collect it all in a different location, which you could invoke 
 to bootstrap a new dmd.  You may run into issues related to 
 D/C++ integration when building the latest dmd, as that 
 hasn&apos;t been tested on OpenBSD, only FreeBSD.

 Why do you want the latest dmd on OpenBSD?  I ask because it 
 will likely require some work, though likely not a lot.


I&apos;ve already tried building 2.067 druntime by mistake and 
run into problems. Most are resolvable by just adding 
TARGET_OPENBSD next to TARGET_FREEBSD. But yeah, it&apos;s gonna 
take some work. I want it because I&apos;m using OpenBSD as my 
main OS and I have a project that I want to port to D.

Btw I should&apos;ve built the `install` target (got confused by 
the wiki). Now I get:

cp: ../ini/openbsd/bin64/dmd.conf: No such file or directory

which is more understandable.
Jul 17 2017
parent reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 at 18:42:39 UTC, Anonymous wrote:

 On Monday, 17 July 2017 at 17:18:23 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 Unfortunately, dmd has not kept porters in mind and 
 hasn&apos;t kept the C++ version updated, or kept a workflow 
 that enables easy bootstrapping:

 http://forum.dlang.org/thread/xgtbpcvbikxlilanrzqa forum.dlang.org

 You will have to build druntime and phobos for 2.067 also and 
 collect it all in a different location, which you could invoke 
 to bootstrap a new dmd.  You may run into issues related to 
 D/C++ integration when building the latest dmd, as that 
 hasn&apos;t been tested on OpenBSD, only FreeBSD.

 Why do you want the latest dmd on OpenBSD?  I ask because it 
 will likely require some work, though likely not a lot.


 I&apos;ve already tried building 2.067 druntime by mistake and 
 run into problems. Most are resolvable by just adding 
 TARGET_OPENBSD next to TARGET_FREEBSD. But yeah, it&apos;s 
 gonna take some work. I want it because I&apos;m using OpenBSD 
 as my main OS and I have a project that I want to port to D.

 Btw I should&apos;ve built the `install` target (got confused 
 by the wiki). Now I get:

 cp: ../ini/openbsd/bin64/dmd.conf: No such file or directory

 which is more understandable.


Alright, there was a contributor who recently got ldc working on 
NetBSD, take a look at his PRs as a guide for what you'll likely 
have to do:

https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3AnrTQgc
https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3AnrTQgc
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3AnrTQgc

OpenBSD PRs welcome! :)

In the meantime, you can see that I've raised this bootstrap 
issue internally and hopefully we can make it easier for future 
porters.
Jul 17 2017
parent reply Kai Nacke <kai redstar.de> writes:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 at 18:58:40 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 On Monday, 17 July 2017 at 18:42:39 UTC, Anonymous wrote:

 On Monday, 17 July 2017 at 17:18:23 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 Unfortunately, dmd has not kept porters in mind and 
 hasn&apos;t kept the C++ version updated, or kept a workflow 
 that enables easy bootstrapping:

 http://forum.dlang.org/thread/xgtbpcvbikxlilanrzqa forum.dlang.org

 You will have to build druntime and phobos for 2.067 also and 
 collect it all in a different location, which you could 
 invoke to bootstrap a new dmd.  You may run into issues 
 related to D/C++ integration when building the latest dmd, as 
 that hasn&apos;t been tested on OpenBSD, only FreeBSD.

 Why do you want the latest dmd on OpenBSD?  I ask because it 
 will likely require some work, though likely not a lot.


 I&apos;ve already tried building 2.067 druntime by mistake and 
 run into problems. Most are resolvable by just adding 
 TARGET_OPENBSD next to TARGET_FREEBSD. But yeah, it&apos;s 
 gonna take some work. I want it because I&apos;m using OpenBSD 
 as my main OS and I have a project that I want to port to D.

 Btw I should&apos;ve built the `install` target (got confused 
 by the wiki). Now I get:

 cp: ../ini/openbsd/bin64/dmd.conf: No such file or directory

 which is more understandable.


 Alright, there was a contributor who recently got ldc working 
 on NetBSD, take a look at his PRs as a guide for what you'll 
 likely have to do:

 https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3AnrTQgc
 https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3AnrTQgc
 https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3AnrTQgc

 OpenBSD PRs welcome! :)

 In the meantime, you can see that I've raised this bootstrap 
 issue internally and hopefully we can make it easier for future 
 porters.


:-)

In master there is already some OpenBSD support. Some time ago I 
worked on druntime support but I still need to finish this. 
Mostly there is nothing magic here - just translating the header 
files. The only non-obvious work is required for the 
module/shared library stuff (in rt.sections). If there is an 
OpenBSD expert around who can help here it would be nice.

Regards,
Kai
Jul 17 2017
parent reply Anonymous <anonymous example.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 05:11:30 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:

 In master there is already some OpenBSD support. Some time ago 
 I worked on druntime support but I still need to finish this. 
 Mostly there is nothing magic here - just translating the 
 header files. The only non-obvious work is required for the 
 module/shared library stuff (in rt.sections). If there is an 
 OpenBSD expert around who can help here it would be nice.


Maybe talk to OpenBSD porters on their mailing list. I&apos;ll 
put my stuff on github as soon as I can.
Jul 18 2017
parent reply Ryan <ryan boggshome.net> writes:
On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 21:01:24 UTC, Anonymous wrote:

 On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 05:11:30 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:

 In master there is already some OpenBSD support. Some time ago 
 I worked on druntime support but I still need to finish this. 
 Mostly there is nothing magic here - just translating the 
 header files. The only non-obvious work is required for the 
 module/shared library stuff (in rt.sections). If there is an 
 OpenBSD expert around who can help here it would be nice.


 Maybe talk to OpenBSD porters on their mailing list. I&apos;ll 
 put my stuff on github as soon as I can.


Sorry to drag up an old post but I am also interested in getting 
dmd on openbsd as it is my OS for my main laptop at home.  Has 
there been any progress with this anywhere?  If not, I would like 
to give it a try.  My experience with D is currently limited but 
I have a decent understanding of the OpenBSD build system (I am 
no expert but I have ported some things to OpenBSD in the past).

I did look around a bit but I could not find any (official) 
instructions on how to build the bootstrap version to use to 
build the latest version of dmd.  Is it pretty much straight 
forward or are there other considerations that I need to be aware 
of?
Dec 26 2018
parent reply Seb <seb wilzba.ch> writes:
On Wednesday, 26 December 2018 at 21:17:13 UTC, Ryan wrote:

 On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 21:01:24 UTC, Anonymous wrote:

 On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 05:11:30 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:

 In master there is already some OpenBSD support. Some time 
 ago I worked on druntime support but I still need to finish 
 this. Mostly there is nothing magic here - just translating 
 the header files. The only non-obvious work is required for 
 the module/shared library stuff (in rt.sections). If there is 
 an OpenBSD expert around who can help here it would be nice.


 Maybe talk to OpenBSD porters on their mailing list. I&apos;ll 
 put my stuff on github as soon as I can.


 Sorry to drag up an old post but I am also interested in 
 getting dmd on openbsd as it is my OS for my main laptop at 
 home.  Has there been any progress with this anywhere?  If not, 
 I would like to give it a try.  My experience with D is 
 currently limited but I have a decent understanding of the 
 OpenBSD build system (I am no expert but I have ported some 
 things to OpenBSD in the past).

 I did look around a bit but I could not find any (official) 
 instructions on how to build the bootstrap version to use to 
 build the latest version of dmd.  Is it pretty much straight 
 forward or are there other considerations that I need to be 
 aware of?


There's the dmd-cxx branch of DMD which was an attempt of 
back-porting Ian's GDC fixes to DMD. So essentially dmd-cxx is 
something like 2.076 (though without static foreach), but it 
doesn't pass the druntime nor Phobos testsuite (it might be 
enough to build DMD master).

The last C++-only version of DMD is 2.068, but in the meantime a 
lot changed.

DragonflyBSD support for DMD and LDC has been added at the end of 
last year (see e.g. [1] or the respective GitHub PRs). I think 
the process should be relatively similar:
- fixing/adding the bindings in druntime in LTS DMD or LDC, s.t. 
it can be compiled for DMD (you don't need Phobos to build DMD, 
though the build scripts might expect it as the testsuite 
partially requires it).
- building the last LTS version
- bootstrap yourself to master (you'll probably need to build 
sth. like 2.079 as an intermediate step)
- build the latest master

However, it might be possible to use LDC to cross-compile 
directly for OpenBSD and self yourself all this bootstrapping 
pain.

Good luck and don't hesitate to ask for more help here, on IRC or 
GitHub.

[1]: 
https://forum.dlang.org/post/elihnyflzlrtfavqyhth forum.dlang.org
Dec 27 2018
parent reply Ryan <ryan boggshome.net> writes:
On Friday, 28 December 2018 at 01:28:31 UTC, Seb wrote:

 On Wednesday, 26 December 2018 at 21:17:13 UTC, Ryan wrote:

 On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 21:01:24 UTC, Anonymous wrote:

 On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 05:11:30 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:

 In master there is already some OpenBSD support. Some time 
 ago I worked on druntime support but I still need to finish 
 this. Mostly there is nothing magic here - just translating 
 the header files. The only non-obvious work is required for 
 the module/shared library stuff (in rt.sections). If there 
 is an OpenBSD expert around who can help here it would be 
 nice.


 Maybe talk to OpenBSD porters on their mailing list. 
 I&apos;ll put my stuff on github as soon as I can.


 Sorry to drag up an old post but I am also interested in 
 getting dmd on openbsd as it is my OS for my main laptop at 
 home.  Has there been any progress with this anywhere?  If 
 not, I would like to give it a try.  My experience with D is 
 currently limited but I have a decent understanding of the 
 OpenBSD build system (I am no expert but I have ported some 
 things to OpenBSD in the past).

 I did look around a bit but I could not find any (official) 
 instructions on how to build the bootstrap version to use to 
 build the latest version of dmd.  Is it pretty much straight 
 forward or are there other considerations that I need to be 
 aware of?


 There's the dmd-cxx branch of DMD which was an attempt of 
 back-porting Ian's GDC fixes to DMD. So essentially dmd-cxx is 
 something like 2.076 (though without static foreach), but it 
 doesn't pass the druntime nor Phobos testsuite (it might be 
 enough to build DMD master).

 The last C++-only version of DMD is 2.068, but in the meantime 
 a lot changed.


Hi Seb,

Thanks for the reply.  My initial thought was to build two ports 
for OpenBSD. One specifically to boot strap using version 2.068 
and the other the actual port.  golang is setup in a similar 
fashion in OpenBSD ports today so I thought that structure would 
work. Do you think it is possible to build the most recent 
version of dmd using 2.068 as the boostrap?  And what compiler 
(and compiler version) should I use?

Also, i did some checking and I think that I can also use the 
FreeBSD makefile as a starting point to get the bootstrapper 
going since there are some similarities between the two systems.  
Enough to see what it takes to build anyway.

 DragonflyBSD support for DMD and LDC has been added at the end 
 of last year (see e.g. [1] or the respective GitHub PRs). I 
 think the process should be relatively similar:
 - fixing/adding the bindings in druntime in LTS DMD or LDC, 
 s.t. it can be compiled for DMD (you don't need Phobos to build 
 DMD, though the build scripts might expect it as the testsuite 
 partially requires it).
 - building the last LTS version
 - bootstrap yourself to master (you'll probably need to build 
 sth. like 2.079 as an intermediate step)
 - build the latest master


I am expecting that I will need to do some patch work while 
trying to port.  My plan was to submit all of my patches during 
this process as a pull request (or requests depending on the 
patches) back to dlang for review and inclusion in future 
releases.  But, first thing is first....

 However, it might be possible to use LDC to cross-compile 
 directly for OpenBSD and self yourself all this bootstrapping 
 pain.


This could be a nice alternative, however LDC isn't in OpenBSD 
ports today either.  So either route I plan to take will require 
bootstrapping work of some kind.

 Good luck and don't hesitate to ask for more help here, on IRC 
 or GitHub.




 [1]: 
 https://forum.dlang.org/post/elihnyflzlrtfavqyhth forum.dlang.org
Dec 27 2018
parent reply Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw gdcproject.org> writes:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 at 03:20, Ryan via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Friday, 28 December 2018 at 01:28:31 UTC, Seb wrote:

 On Wednesday, 26 December 2018 at 21:17:13 UTC, Ryan wrote:

 On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 21:01:24 UTC, Anonymous wrote:

 On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 05:11:30 UTC, Kai Nacke wrote:

 In master there is already some OpenBSD support. Some time
 ago I worked on druntime support but I still need to finish
 this. Mostly there is nothing magic here - just translating
 the header files. The only non-obvious work is required for
 the module/shared library stuff (in rt.sections). If there
 is an OpenBSD expert around who can help here it would be
 nice.


 Maybe talk to OpenBSD porters on their mailing list.
 I&apos;ll put my stuff on github as soon as I can.


 Sorry to drag up an old post but I am also interested in
 getting dmd on openbsd as it is my OS for my main laptop at
 home.  Has there been any progress with this anywhere?  If
 not, I would like to give it a try.  My experience with D is
 currently limited but I have a decent understanding of the
 OpenBSD build system (I am no expert but I have ported some
 things to OpenBSD in the past).

 I did look around a bit but I could not find any (official)
 instructions on how to build the bootstrap version to use to
 build the latest version of dmd.  Is it pretty much straight
 forward or are there other considerations that I need to be
 aware of?


 There's the dmd-cxx branch of DMD which was an attempt of
 back-porting Ian's GDC fixes to DMD. So essentially dmd-cxx is
 something like 2.076 (though without static foreach), but it
 doesn't pass the druntime nor Phobos testsuite (it might be
 enough to build DMD master).

 The last C++-only version of DMD is 2.068, but in the meantime
 a lot changed.


 Hi Seb,

 Thanks for the reply.  My initial thought was to build two ports
 for OpenBSD. One specifically to boot strap using version 2.068
 and the other the actual port.  golang is setup in a similar
 fashion in OpenBSD ports today so I thought that structure would
 work. Do you think it is possible to build the most recent
 version of dmd using 2.068 as the boostrap?  And what compiler
 (and compiler version) should I use?


Strictly speaking, the last C++ version of DMD was 2.067, as idgen and
impcnvgen were converted prior to the rest of the codebase (however,
it's trivial to generate id.{c,h} and impcnvtab.c ahead of time).

If you're using 2.068 as a bootstrap, you'll have to make two jumps in
order to get to the latest release, 2.068 -> 2.076 -> 2.084.  You can
then keep 2.076 around as the baseline for building latter versions,
which should be remain true for the next year or so before the next
minimum version bump.


 However, it might be possible to use LDC to cross-compile
 directly for OpenBSD and self yourself all this bootstrapping
 pain.


 This could be a nice alternative, however LDC isn't in OpenBSD
 ports today either.  So either route I plan to take will require
 bootstrapping work of some kind.


What about gcc? Granted there will be one patch you'll need to apply
to the compiler to add relevant OpenBSD versions, pthread_mutex_t
sizes, etc... the rest should be only be adding druntime bindings.

-- 
Iain
Dec 28 2018
parent reply Thomas Mader <thomas.mader gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 28 December 2018 at 12:02:48 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 If you're using 2.068 as a bootstrap, you'll have to make two 
 jumps in order to get to the latest release, 2.068 -> 2.076 -> 
 2.084.  You can then keep 2.076 around as the baseline for 
 building latter versions, which should be remain true for the 
 next year or so before the next minimum version bump.


I use ldc 0.17.6 to bootstrap directly to the latest ldc version.
I haven't tried it myself but it might be possible to bootstrap 
dmd directly from ldc 0.17.6.
Dec 28 2018
parent reply Ryan <ryan boggshome.net> writes:
On Friday, 28 December 2018 at 16:37:14 UTC, Thomas Mader wrote:

 On Friday, 28 December 2018 at 12:02:48 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 If you're using 2.068 as a bootstrap, you'll have to make two 
 jumps in order to get to the latest release, 2.068 -> 2.076 -> 
 2.084.  You can then keep 2.076 around as the baseline for 
 building latter versions, which should be remain true for the 
 next year or so before the next minimum version bump.




ugh, I can see that sort of setup becoming cumbersome to maintain 
overtime in the OpenBSD ports world.  Maybe using 2.068 as the 
bootstrapper isn't the best approach after all.

 I use ldc 0.17.6 to bootstrap directly to the latest ldc 
 version.
 I haven't tried it myself but it might be possible to bootstrap 
 dmd directly from ldc 0.17.6.


I looked around a bit more and I found some initial work porting 
ldc to OpenBSD.  It's old and doesn't look like it has been 
touched in a while but it is a start.  There are some patches in 
there as well.  They may need some updating but it's good to know 
what is needed.

Using LDC as the bootstrapper may be best approach after all, if 
it can bootstrap dmd.  If so, we could potentially use LDC 0.17.6 
not only to boot strap dmd but the main version of LDC as well.  
Thus killing two birds with one stone.  Unless there are other 
thoughts or considerations, I think I will try the ldc bootstrap 
route.
Dec 28 2018
next sibling parent Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw gdcproject.org> writes:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 at 22:55, Ryan via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d puremagic.com> wrote:

 On Friday, 28 December 2018 at 16:37:14 UTC, Thomas Mader wrote:

 On Friday, 28 December 2018 at 12:02:48 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:

 If you're using 2.068 as a bootstrap, you'll have to make two
 jumps in order to get to the latest release, 2.068 -> 2.076 ->
 2.084.  You can then keep 2.076 around as the baseline for
 building latter versions, which should be remain true for the
 next year or so before the next minimum version bump.




 ugh, I can see that sort of setup becoming cumbersome to maintain
 overtime in the OpenBSD ports world.  Maybe using 2.068 as the
 bootstrapper isn't the best approach after all.


Well, you only need to bootstrap it once, and when you have the 2.076
compiler built, you just keep those binaries around, there's no need
to use the 2.068 sources ever again.

Hopefully the dmd CI covers that version of ldc.  Though if it's based
on 2.068, your mileage may vary, as the source code is not compatible
with that version anymore.

Good luck!
Dec 28 2018
prev sibling parent reply Thomas Mader <thomas.mader gmail.com> writes:
On Friday, 28 December 2018 at 21:52:30 UTC, Ryan wrote:

 ugh, I can see that sort of setup becoming cumbersome to 
 maintain overtime in the OpenBSD ports world.  Maybe using 
 2.068 as the bootstrapper isn't the best approach after all.


I decided against a multi level bootstrap process in NixOS 
because it increases the build time immensely.
In NixOS every dependent package is automatically rebuild if only 
the slightest change is happening in the base package.
The more levels the more complex it gets.


 I looked around a bit more and I found some initial work 
 porting ldc to OpenBSD.  It's old and doesn't look like it has 
 been touched in a while but it is a start.  There are some 
 patches in there as well.  They may need some updating but it's 
 good to know what is needed.


I don't know nothing about OpenBSD. What is the problem with 
packaging LDC? What makes the packaging in OpenBSD so special?


 Using LDC as the bootstrapper may be best approach after all, 
 if it can bootstrap dmd.  If so, we could potentially use LDC 
 0.17.6 not only to boot strap dmd but the main version of LDC 
 as well.  Thus killing two birds with one stone.  Unless there 
 are other thoughts or considerations, I think I will try the 
 ldc bootstrap route.


In NixOS I use LDC 0.17.6 to bootstrap the latest LDC version and 
then the latest LDC version to bootstrap dmd.
For now it seems that the LDC maintainers find it important to 
keep the bootstrapping version 0.17.x working as there are new 
versions every now and then.
If you want to have LDC and dmd, which is not a bad idea anyway, 
you are probably spending your time the most effective way 
possible currently.
Bootstrapping dmd with dmd doesn't have a fixed N as nobody cares 
really hard about the version required to build the latest 
version. Because of this it's quite obvious that N will grow in 
the near future as people might want/need newer features to 
implement stuff in the dmd frontend or backend.
Jan 02 2019
parent reply Ryan <ryan boggshome.net> writes:
On Wednesday, 2 January 2019 at 21:38:19 UTC, Thomas Mader wrote:

 On Friday, 28 December 2018 at 21:52:30 UTC, Ryan wrote:

 ugh, I can see that sort of setup becoming cumbersome to 
 maintain overtime in the OpenBSD ports world.  Maybe using 
 2.068 as the bootstrapper isn't the best approach after all.


 I decided against a multi level bootstrap process in NixOS 
 because it increases the build time immensely.
 In NixOS every dependent package is automatically rebuild if 
 only the slightest change is happening in the base package.
 The more levels the more complex it gets.


 I looked around a bit more and I found some initial work 
 porting ldc to OpenBSD.  It's old and doesn't look like it has 
 been touched in a while but it is a start.  There are some 
 patches in there as well.  They may need some updating but 
 it's good to know what is needed.


 I don't know nothing about OpenBSD. What is the problem with 
 packaging LDC? What makes the packaging in OpenBSD so special?


Nothing really.  It's about the same as trying to get LDC to work 
on a new OS that LDC doesn't know about yet.

 Using LDC as the bootstrapper may be best approach after all, 
 if it can bootstrap dmd.  If so, we could potentially use LDC 
 0.17.6 not only to boot strap dmd but the main version of LDC 
 as well.  Thus killing two birds with one stone.  Unless there 
 are other thoughts or considerations, I think I will try the 
 ldc bootstrap route.


 In NixOS I use LDC 0.17.6 to bootstrap the latest LDC version 
 and then the latest LDC version to bootstrap dmd.
 For now it seems that the LDC maintainers find it important to 
 keep the bootstrapping version 0.17.x working as there are new 
 versions every now and then.
 If you want to have LDC and dmd, which is not a bad idea 
 anyway, you are probably spending your time the most effective 
 way possible currently.
 Bootstrapping dmd with dmd doesn't have a fixed N as nobody 
 cares really hard about the version required to build the 
 latest version. Because of this it's quite obvious that N will 
 grow in the near future as people might want/need newer 
 features to implement stuff in the dmd frontend or backend.


This is what I am doing at the moment.  It's taking time because 
there are OS specific items that need to be added to LDC (mainly 
druntime so far) for it to work on OpenBSD.

Just to bring everyone else up to speed on this. I'm currently 
focused on porting over LDC 0.17.6 as a bootstrap port for 
OpenBSD. I have a working Makefile on OpenBSD ports but the
build is currently bombing on the DRuntime build, which was 
expected based on conversations with the person who initially 
started porting this about a year ago.  I'm trying to build 
patches to get DRuntime to build but it is a slow process, as you 
can imagine.

Quick question for those in the know:
I'm working on patching sys/signal.d for this and there is a 
struct in here called "sigstack" that seems to need defining.  
However, the struct doesn't seem to exist on OpenBSD.  Does 
anyone know if this struct is actually required or is there a 
known alternative that I can try?
Jan 14 2019
parent reply Ryan <ryan boggshome.net> writes:
On Monday, 14 January 2019 at 15:34:21 UTC, Ryan wrote:


 Quick question for those in the know:
 I'm working on patching sys/signal.d for this and there is a 
 struct in here called "sigstack" that seems to need defining.  
 However, the struct doesn't seem to exist on OpenBSD.  Does 
 anyone know if this struct is actually required or is there a 
 known alternative that I can try?


Figured this out and moved on to the next batch of OpenBSD 
porting issues, which is currently rt/sections.d and elf related 
items.

FYI - If anyone is curious about the progress on this, I've push 
this work to the link below.  It's just the bootstrap port but it 
is the beginning.  And I am working on more patches which I will 
push to the repo below as time permits...

https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/tree/master/lang/ldc-bootstrap

Thanks,
Ryan
Jan 19 2019
parent Ryan <ryan boggshome.net> writes:
On Saturday, 19 January 2019 at 15:35:23 UTC, Ryan wrote:


 FYI - If anyone is curious about the progress on this, I've 
 push this work to the link below.  It's just the bootstrap port 
 but it is the beginning.  And I am working on more patches 
 which I will push to the repo below as time permits...

 https://github.com/jasperla/openbsd-wip/tree/master/lang/ldc-bootstrap


https://github.com/rmboggs/dmd-druntime/tree/openbsd-wip

Made more progress but I am now trying to work on rt/sections.d 
and rt/sections_elf_shared.d but I am having some trouble with 
these. Should I be coming here for questions on these files or is 
there somewhere else I should go?

Thanks,
Ryan
Jan 26 2019
prev sibling parent Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d puremagic.com> writes:
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 19:00:32 Anonymous via Digitalmars-d wrote:

 I did some googling (well, duckduckgoing) and found a few posts
 on this forum indicating that this could work. So I gave it a try
 and followed https://wiki.dlang.org/Building_under_Posix
 The build failed because src/posix.mak in the dmd repo was trying
 to download
 http://downloads.dlang.org/releases/2.x/2.072.2/dmd.2.072.2.openbsd.tar.xz
 which doesn&apos;t exist. What do I do now?

 OTOH it&apos;s a good thing that the build failed. When I saw
 http:// instead of https:// in the console output I went to check
 what the makefile was doing and - wait for it - it was trying to
 download an executable from the internet and run it. I
 couldn&apos;t believe my eyes. I mean, you sure can use an
 unencrypted channel but then you need some kind of cryptographic
 signature to verify the downloaded file. I tried the above with
 2.074.1 (the latest stable) but the trunk version has this too.


I'm pretty sure that druntime would need to be updated before you'd get much
of anywhere with OpenBSD. dmd _might_ work as-is, depending on what's
missing in druntime, but all of the various bindings would need to be
updated. grepping druntime, it does look like there are a number of version
blocks checking OpenBSD, but nowhere near as many as FreeBSD or linux. So,
to have the same level of functionality, I'd expect that more places would
need to be doing else version(OpenBSD) and doing the right thing for
OpenBSD, but I don't know how many would be required to get off the ground
so to speak. Clearly, someone put in some time and effort towards getting
OpenBSD working, but I have no idea how close they got. Most of the missing
bindings would probably be pretty close to what's in the FreeBSD version
blocks though. Most of the time, the tedium with getting the system bindings
set up for a new POSIX system is going over each section and making sure
that when it's created, the bindings match the new system. They're generally
_very_ close but slightly different - which is why they aren't just put
under version(Posix) and left at that.

- Jonathan M Davis
Jul 17 2017