[dmd-internals] Create a dmd-cxx branch on dlang/dmd

[Diederik de Groot]

On Monday, 11 December 2017 at 19:42:39 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 11 December 2017 at 20:28, Diederik de Groot via ....
>>
>> Hi Iain/All,
>>
>> Thanks for creating the dmd-cxx branch. I used it when porting 
>> dmd/druntime and phobos to DragonFlyBSD (see: 
>> https://forum.dlang.org/post/bsgxwztbentpvxggahzx@forum.dlang.org).
>>
>> Is the dmd-cxx going to be available in the future as a 
>> starting point for other ports ? Are you / is anyone working 
>> on making it compatible with the current master branch 
>> (v2.077.x) ? Or is it ok to use a multi stage method (like i 
>> did) ?
>>
>> I used v2.068.2 as the middle stage, instead of v2.072.2 to 
>> which you updated dmd-cxx, which i only noticed after i had 
>> finished the v2.068.2 version. Is it ok to depend on 2.68.2 
>> instead of the version you chose ?
>>
>
> I would hardly call it 2.072, its just 2.068 but with some 
> regression fixes from latter releases.  The only thing I 
> guarantee it to build is phobos and dmd.
>
> I can't see it being updated beyond a 2.076-ish front-end 
> (which is
> what gdc is using).
>
> Iain.

Hi Iain,

Thanks for your timely response !

 From the above i gather, from your response, i should be ok with 
using 2.068 as the intermediate stage.
Using these branches 'dmd-cxx' -> '2.068' -> 'master' seems to be 
working for me. Currently it is able to pass 99% of the phobos 
unittests. I am currently working on the last couple of 
unittests, which seem to point out issues with my porting effort 
(Differences between FreeBSD and DragonFlyBSD for example).

I tried compiling the master branch with dmd-cxx directly (both 
on linux as well as on dragonflybsd), but was running into 
multiple problems. Issues which i could not resolve (Linking 
issues, Missing references, d-language changes, ie: body->do, 
etc). Using an intermediate step seemed to resolve this (so i 
went with that). If it was intented for the `dmd-cxx` branch to 
be able to compile 'master' directly, we may have to revisit it, 
and resolve the issues, mentioned above.

If necessary, I will revisit using v2.072 instead of v2.068.2 
is/when i run into any problems. Because of my current dependence 
on having the DragonFlyBSD changes committed to v2.068.2, do you 
see this as a problem getting the PR committed, later on ?

Regards,

Diederik