On 2016-02-03 21:18, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d wrote:

> I haven't put much time into investigation, but the last time I tried
> it, neither 9 nor 10 passed the test suite.  If someone puts in the
> effort to get either or both of those working, I'd be happy to upgrade
> some of the freebsd testers to newer versions.  There's currently 4
> freebsd machines, so plenty of room to have a mix of versions.  Not
> enough to test every combination of version and bitness, but enough to
> allow randomness to expose issues.

Perhaps it's worth taking a look at Docker. As far as I understand there's experimental support for FreeBSD [1]. It uses ZFS, jail and the 64bit Linux compatibility layer. Seems to be possible to run both Linux and FreeBSD images in Docker for FreeBSD.

Although I'm not sure if it's possible to mix 32bit and 64bit with Docker.

[1] https://wiki.freebsd.org/Docker

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 at 20:18:52 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 2/3/16 11:28 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 06:34:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> It's always nice when that happens, especially when there's not much FreeBSD-specific work going on,
>> and the autotesters have generally been on older versions of FreeBSD such that issues on the newer
>> versions don't always get noticed (e.g. for a while there, the shared library stuff passed the tests
>> on FreeBSD 8 but not later; fortunately Martin got that fixed though).
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
> I haven't put much time into investigation, but the last time I tried it, neither 9 nor 10 passed the test suite.  If someone puts in the effort to get either or both of those working, I'd be happy to upgrade some of the freebsd testers to newer versions.  There's currently 4 freebsd machines, so plenty of room to have a mix of versions.  Not enough to test every combination of version and bitness, but enough to allow randomness to expose issues.

One option to consider is installing FreeBSD 10 and then testing 8 and 9 in jails, which are the precursor to Linux containers.  I used this approach years ago, when compiling Chromium for several FreeBSD versions.

On 2/4/2016 1:27 AM, Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 2016-02-03 21:18, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>
>> I haven't put much time into investigation, but the last time I tried
>> it, neither 9 nor 10 passed the test suite.  If someone puts in the
>> effort to get either or both of those working, I'd be happy to upgrade
>> some of the freebsd testers to newer versions.  There's currently 4
>> freebsd machines, so plenty of room to have a mix of versions.  Not
>> enough to test every combination of version and bitness, but enough to
>> allow randomness to expose issues.
>
> Perhaps it's worth taking a look at Docker. As far as I understand
> there's experimental support for FreeBSD [1]. It uses ZFS, jail and the
> 64bit Linux compatibility layer. Seems to be possible to run both Linux
> and FreeBSD images in Docker for FreeBSD.
>
> Although I'm not sure if it's possible to mix 32bit and 64bit with Docker.
>
> [1] https://wiki.freebsd.org/Docker

It's not about mechanism, it's about compute hours in the day.  Yes, making each machine a little more flexible would be useful for leveling out the progress across platforms, but there just isn't enough hardware in my fleet for adding a bunch more configurations to the matrix.

On 2016-02-04 10:43, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d wrote:

> It's not about mechanism, it's about compute hours in the day.  Yes,
> making each machine a little more flexible would be useful for leveling
> out the progress across platforms, but there just isn't enough hardware
> in my fleet for adding a bunch more configurations to the matrix.

Ah, I see. What's the average time for a pull request for the complete matrix?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 at 20:18:52 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
> On 2/3/16 11:28 AM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Sunday, 31 January 2016 at 06:34:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> 32/64 support now on Linux and FreeBSD.
>>>
>>>   https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/5376
>>>
>>> Turns out that FreeBSD is close enough to Linux that it "just worked".
>>
>> It's always nice when that happens, especially when there's not much FreeBSD-specific work going on,
>> and the autotesters have generally been on older versions of FreeBSD such that issues on the newer
>> versions don't always get noticed (e.g. for a while there, the shared library stuff passed the tests
>> on FreeBSD 8 but not later; fortunately Martin got that fixed though).
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
>
> I haven't put much time into investigation, but the last time I tried it, neither 9 nor 10 passed the test suite.  If someone puts in the effort to get either or both of those working, I'd be happy to upgrade some of the freebsd testers to newer versions.  There's currently 4 freebsd machines, so plenty of room to have a mix of versions.  Not enough to test every combination of version and bitness, but enough to allow randomness to expose issues.

I know that the druntime and Phobos unit tests pass on 11 (which is what I'm currently running), and I'm fairly sure that they do on 10 (I don't know about 9), but I have no idea what the state of the dmd tests are on anything newer than 8. I'll have to see if I can find time to at least see what's currently working and report issues.

- Jonathan M Davis

On 2/6/2016 6:15 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> I know that the druntime and Phobos unit tests pass on 11 (which is what I'm
> currently running), and I'm fairly sure that they do on 10 (I don't know about
> 9), but I have no idea what the state of the dmd tests are on anything newer
> than 8. I'll have to see if I can find time to at least see what's currently
> working and report issues.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Thanks, Jonathan!