On 3 Feb 2016 8:35 am, "Joakim via Digitalmars-d" < [email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 at 07:01:10 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> On 3 Feb 2016 7:30 am, "Joakim via Digitalmars-d" < [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, 2 February 2016 at 18:45:20 UTC, Nikolay wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I am porting LDC/phobos/druntime to NetBSD. Currently my patch is merged >> >> into LDC master. I have several questions about phobos/druntime and general workflow. >>>> >>>> As I can understand I should prepare pull requests for phobos/druntime >> >> master branches. LDC team will merge/cherry-pick changes into ldc branch from master later. Is it correct workflow? Because it means that I can’t check my patch: there is no dmd compiler for NetBSD + phobos/druntime master branches. >>> >>> >>> >>> You're probably better off porting dmd 2.068 first (as it's the last dmd >> >> written wholly in C++), using it to compile dmd git master on NetBSD, then porting druntime and phobos master. Porting dmd to NetBSD/x86 is likely easy: simply follow what the other BSDs have done, as you did for ldc. >>> >>> >> >> I doubt it. Using ldc/gdc usually means that it's just the library you need to play with, not the compiler. > > > The problem is that ldc/gdc are not on 2.069, let alone the just-released 2.070. So as he said, if he really wants to test his druntime/phobos PRs against master _on_ NetBSD, he has no choice but to port dmd. I haven't had to do so myself, but looking at how it's been done for other BSDs, it looks fairly easy to me.
Druntime doesn't change all that much, so it's trivial to rebase to master. As for phobos, the only parts that matter tend to be std.math and co. Maybe there are some places like std.file too, but I've likely been spoiled by using version(GNU) in places where DMD chooses to have a version branch for each platform. :-)
