www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.ldc - AArch64 server donation

reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
I recently stumbled across an ARM initiative to fund OSS project 
ports to 64-bit ARM by providing free access to build/CI servers:

https://github.com/WorksOnArm/cluster

It is administered by an ISP called Packet.net and funded by ARM. 
I contacted Ed at Packet and he encouraged the LDC devs to apply 
by opening on issue at that github, though he'd like us to have 
two applicants.  Alternately, he suggested contacting one of the 
already approved projects, like this one setup for llvm earlier 
this month, and getting access through them to their server:

https://github.com/WorksOnArm/cluster/issues/24

David and Kai, as the maintainers of the ldc project, mind filing 
an issue there for ldc, to apply for an ldc CI?  Alternately, we 
could talk to one of the approved projects and try going through 
them.

I want to look at AArch64 porting, but unfortunately no access to 
any hardware at the moment.  Even a linux/AArch64 shell account 
alone would be good to fix some porting issues.
Dec 23 2017
next sibling parent reply kinke <noone nowhere.com> writes:
[I'm in contact with a guy who would also be willing to provide 
us with an AArch64 CI box and who's currently trying to set up 
GitHub integration.]
Dec 27 2017
parent reply "David Nadlinger" <code klickverbot.at> writes:
On 27 Dec 2017, at 14:10, kinke via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:

 [I'm in contact with a guy who would also be willing to provide us 
 with an AArch64 CI box and who's currently trying to set up GitHub 
 integration.]


That's good to hear. Ideally, we would have two boxes (or one beefier 
one) anyway – one for CI testing, and an environment to investigate 
regressions/… as they arise beyond what can easily be done with 
cross-compilation.

  — David
Dec 27 2017
parent reply Chris Katko <ckatko gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 14:49:29 UTC, David Nadlinger 
wrote:

 On 27 Dec 2017, at 14:10, kinke via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:

 [I'm in contact with a guy who would also be willing to 
 provide us with an AArch64 CI box and who's currently trying 
 to set up GitHub integration.]


 That's good to hear. Ideally, we would have two boxes (or one 
 beefier one) anyway – one for CI testing, and an environment to 
 investigate regressions/… as they arise beyond what can easily 
 be done with cross-compilation.

  — David


So... all you need is a Raspberry Pi 3 or 2 (v1.2)?

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Raspberry_Pi

     "The Raspberry Pi 3 uses a Broadcom BCM2837 SoC with a 1.2 
GHz 64-bit quad-core ARM Cortex-A53 processor, with 512 KB shared 
L2 cache.[26]"

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/ARM_Cortex-A53

     "Microarchitecture	ARMv8-A"
Jan 02 2018
parent "David Nadlinger" <code klickverbot.at> writes:
On 2 Jan 2018, at 12:52, Chris Katko via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:

 So... all you need is a Raspberry Pi 3 or 2 (v1.2)?


A Raspberry Pi is better than nothing, but only 1 GB of RAM and 
particularly the lack of proper storage (while also only spotting Fast 
Ethernet over USB) makes it quite painful to use for compiler 
development. I've tried using an ODROID-X board for ARMv7 back in the 
day, but cross-compiling and using QEMU was less of a hassle in the end.

  — David
Jan 02 2018
prev sibling parent reply Laeeth Isharc <laeeth laeeth.com> writes:
On Saturday, 23 December 2017 at 09:53:51 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 I recently stumbled across an ARM initiative to fund OSS 
 project ports to 64-bit ARM by providing free access to 
 build/CI servers:

 https://github.com/WorksOnArm/cluster

 It is administered by an ISP called Packet.net and funded by 
 ARM. I contacted Ed at Packet and he encouraged the LDC devs to 
 apply by opening on issue at that github, though he'd like us 
 to have two applicants.  Alternately, he suggested contacting 
 one of the already approved projects, like this one setup for 
 llvm earlier this month, and getting access through them to 
 their server:

 https://github.com/WorksOnArm/cluster/issues/24

 David and Kai, as the maintainers of the ldc project, mind 
 filing an issue there for ldc, to apply for an ldc CI?  
 Alternately, we could talk to one of the approved projects and 
 try going through them.

 I want to look at AArch64 porting, but unfortunately no access 
 to any hardware at the moment.  Even a linux/AArch64 shell 
 account alone would be good to fix some porting issues.


Let me know if this doesn't work out - I can pay for a couple of 
ARM servers if it helps.
Jan 10 2018
parent reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 04:01:40 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:

 On Saturday, 23 December 2017 at 09:53:51 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 [...]


 Let me know if this doesn't work out - I can pay for a couple 
 of ARM servers if it helps.


Too late for me, I'll be getting access to some 64-bit Android 
devices again in a couple days.

David, any plans to apply for a 64-bit ARM server from Packet?  
Even though I don't need it anymore, it might make a useful CI 
box.
Jan 15 2018
parent reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Tuesday, 16 January 2018 at 05:40:26 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 On Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 04:01:40 UTC, Laeeth Isharc 
 wrote:

 On Saturday, 23 December 2017 at 09:53:51 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 [...]


 Let me know if this doesn't work out - I can pay for a couple 
 of ARM servers if it helps.


 Too late for me, I'll be getting access to some 64-bit Android 
 devices again in a couple days.

 David, any plans to apply for a 64-bit ARM server from Packet?  
 Even though I don't need it anymore, it might make a useful CI 
 box.


I just saw this month-old announcement of a free ARM64 CI for OSS 
projects, should be easier to setup than the ARM application 
process I brought up before:

http://blog.shippable.com/shippable-arm-packet-deliver-native-ci-cd-for-arm-architecture

I know Kai has an AArch64 buildbot set up at Scaleway already, 
but maybe this would work better, now that the AArch64 port is 
almost done.
Aug 05 2018
parent reply kinke <kinke libero.it> writes:
On Sunday, 5 August 2018 at 18:45:01 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 I just saw this month-old announcement of a free ARM64 CI for 
 OSS projects, should be easier to setup than the ARM 
 application process I brought up before:

 http://blog.shippable.com/shippable-arm-packet-deliver-native-ci-cd-for-arm-architecture

 I know Kai has an AArch64 buildbot set up at Scaleway already, 
 but maybe this would work better, now that the AArch64 port is 
 almost done.


Sounds interesting; I signed up yesterday with GitHub, but can 
only manage my own repos, so David Or Kai would apparently need 
to register our organization.
Aug 06 2018
parent reply "David Nadlinger" <code klickverbot.at> writes:
On 6 Aug 2018, at 10:20, kinke via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:

 Sounds interesting; I signed up yesterday with GitHub, but can only 
 manage my own repos, so David Or Kai would apparently need to register 
 our organization.


I had the same problem, until I granted it access to "private" 
repositories (as per the GitHub permissions it requests when you tick 
the respective box on its settings page). It was listed as an authorized 
application for ldc-developers before, so not sure what's going on…

Either way, it should work now, although I didn't configure any builds 
yet.

  — David
Aug 06 2018
parent reply kinke <noone nowhere.com> writes:
On Monday, 6 August 2018 at 10:45:51 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:

 I had the same problem, until I granted it access to "private" 
 repositories (as per the GitHub permissions it requests when 
 you tick the respective box on its settings page). It was 
 listed as an authorized application for ldc-developers before, 
 so not sure what's going on…

 Either way, it should work now, although I didn't configure any 
 builds yet.


Thx, it apparently does, but x86_64 only. I gave it access to my 
private repos, but I still can't change the billing plan [1] to 
add an AArch64 SKU (whatever that is) according to [2]. Could you 
give it a try maybe?

[1] https://app.shippable.com/subs/github/ldc-developers/billingV2
[2] 
http://docs.shippable.com/platform/tutorial/workflow/run-ci-builds-on-arm/
Aug 06 2018
parent Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Monday, 6 August 2018 at 22:19:01 UTC, kinke wrote:

 On Monday, 6 August 2018 at 10:45:51 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:

 I had the same problem, until I granted it access to "private" 
 repositories (as per the GitHub permissions it requests when 
 you tick the respective box on its settings page). It was 
 listed as an authorized application for ldc-developers before, 
 so not sure what's going on…

 Either way, it should work now, although I didn't configure 
 any builds yet.


 Thx, it apparently does, but x86_64 only. I gave it access to 
 my private repos, but I still can't change the billing plan [1] 
 to add an AArch64 SKU (whatever that is)


A Stock-Keeping Unit, a generic term from retail for another 
version of your product, in this case their AArch64 CI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_keeping_unit

I just backported std.conv support for quadruple-precision reals 
from the pull that was just merged upstream, have another pull 
open upstream to get core.internal.convert building with 
Quadruples. Once that's in, all the druntime unit tests pass on 
AArch64.

We're not far off from a working ltsmaster for AArch64.
Aug 06 2018