www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.ldc - LTS master CI testing

reply Johan Engelen <j j.nl> writes:
Hi all,
   For LTS master, can we drop the Windows testing?
I think LTS master only makes sense for being able to bootstrap 
from source. But that's only relevant on Linuxes, right?

I feel it'd make things easier if we just drop as much support as 
possible, so that we can spend our energy where it matters.

Thanks for input,
   Johan
Aug 04 2017
next sibling parent David Nadlinger via digitalmars-d-ldc <digitalmars-d-ldc puremagic.com> writes:
Hi Johan,

In this specific instance (ltsmaster) it would probably be fine to drop 
support, but generally I'd prefer to place more focus on making things 
less brittle/easier to test/etc. by fixing the sporadic CI failures, 
providing default Docker/Vagrant/… dev environments, and so on.

Realistically, the number of different platforms and configurations is 
only going to increase, and wide platform support is one of the main 
advantages LDC offers, so it makes sense to reduce the amount of effort 
required for maintaining them.

Best,
David



On 4 Aug 2017, at 20:02, Johan Engelen via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:


 Hi all,
   For LTS master, can we drop the Windows testing?
 I think LTS master only makes sense for being able to bootstrap from 
 source. But that's only relevant on Linuxes, right?

 I feel it'd make things easier if we just drop as much support as 
 possible, so that we can spend our energy where it matters.

 Thanks for input,
   Johan
Aug 04 2017
prev sibling next sibling parent kinke <noone nowhere.com> writes:
On Friday, 4 August 2017 at 19:02:59 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:

 For LTS master, can we drop the Windows testing?


Sure, it hasn't been working for ages anyway, and installing a D 
host compiler binary is the most natural thing to do on Windows.
Aug 04 2017
prev sibling parent reply Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Friday, 4 August 2017 at 19:02:59 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:

 Hi all,
   For LTS master, can we drop the Windows testing?
 I think LTS master only makes sense for being able to bootstrap 
 from source. But that's only relevant on Linuxes, right?


Why would the OS matter?  It's so we can port to new platforms by 
first building the C++-only ltsmaster compiler with the C++ 
toolchain for the platform.  For example, if someone picks up the 
new Windows on ARM laptops, coming out in a couple months, they 
could easily build ltsmaster ldc for it, though the stdlib might 
require some tweaking.


 I feel it'd make things easier if we just drop as much support 
 as possible, so that we can spend our energy where it matters.


Honestly, I don't care about Windows and don't mind dropping 
this, just don't see why it'd only matter for linux.
Aug 04 2017
next sibling parent Johan Engelen <j j.nl> writes:
On Saturday, 5 August 2017 at 03:06:45 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 On Friday, 4 August 2017 at 19:02:59 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:

 Hi all,
   For LTS master, can we drop the Windows testing?
 I think LTS master only makes sense for being able to 
 bootstrap from source. But that's only relevant on Linuxes, 
 right?


 Why would the OS matter?


The OS indeed doesn't matter, it's just that I wasn't aware of 
Windows and MacOSX having a bootstrap problem.


 It's so we can port to new platforms by first building the 
 C++-only ltsmaster compiler with the C++ toolchain for the 
 platform.  For example, if someone picks up the new Windows on 
 ARM laptops, coming out in a couple months, they could easily 
 build ltsmaster ldc for it, though the stdlib might require 
 some tweaking.


Windows on ARM, ok so then we do have a bootstrap problem.

I'll work towards fixing the LLVM download on AppVeyor then.

-Johan
Aug 05 2017
prev sibling parent reply kinke <noone nowhere.com> writes:
On Saturday, 5 August 2017 at 03:06:45 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 Why would the OS matter?


Back at 0.17 times, Windows wasn't fully supported. Rainer's 
final EH fixes require at least LLVM 3.8 IIRC and probably 
haven't been ported back. So it's barely usable, and even if the 
CI build problems are resolved, many tests will fail.


 For example, if someone picks up the new Windows on ARM 
 laptops, coming out in a couple months, they could easily build 
 ltsmaster ldc for it, though the stdlib might require some 
 tweaking.


I thought Windows on ARM was dead, but apparently they're trying 
it again, this time with a full x86 emulation layer:

"Windows 10 on ARM is completely different. This is the full 
Windows desktop experience. Microsoft has created a special 
emulator layer that allows traditional 32-bit desktop 
applications to run on ARM processors, so everything should “just 
work”." [1]

If that really works, there's no bootstrapping issue and people 
can simply install a 32-bit x86 Windows package as host compiler.

[1]: 
https://www.howtogeek.com/309119/what-is-windows-10-on-arm-and-how-is-it-different-from-windows-rt/
Aug 05 2017
parent Joakim <dlang joakim.fea.st> writes:
On Saturday, 5 August 2017 at 13:03:43 UTC, kinke wrote:

 On Saturday, 5 August 2017 at 03:06:45 UTC, Joakim wrote:

 Why would the OS matter?


 Back at 0.17 times, Windows wasn't fully supported. Rainer's 
 final EH fixes require at least LLVM 3.8 IIRC and probably 
 haven't been ported back. So it's barely usable, and even if 
 the CI build problems are resolved, many tests will fail.


I see, I didn't realize all the Windows fixes for ldc were after 
that release.


 For example, if someone picks up the new Windows on ARM 
 laptops, coming out in a couple months, they could easily 
 build ltsmaster ldc for it, though the stdlib might require 
 some tweaking.


 I thought Windows on ARM was dead, but apparently they're 
 trying it again, this time with a full x86 emulation layer:

 "Windows 10 on ARM is completely different. This is the full 
 Windows desktop experience. Microsoft has created a special 
 emulator layer that allows traditional 32-bit desktop 
 applications to run on ARM processors, so everything should 
 “just work”." [1]

 If that really works, there's no bootstrapping issue and people 
 can simply install a 32-bit x86 Windows package as host 
 compiler.

 [1]: 
 https://www.howtogeek.com/309119/what-is-windows-10-on-arm-and-how-is-it-different-from-windows-rt/


You're right, this would allow simply running the regular ldc 
cross-compiler.  Although, Intel has published a blog post 
threatening lawsuits over x86 patents, which is generally 
interpreted to be directed at this Microsoft/ARM effort, so it's 
possible they may remove it in the final release:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/intel-fires-warning-shots-at-microsoft-claims-x86-emulation-is-a-patent-minefield/
Aug 05 2017