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.

Also I have a set of issues with real (long double) type. Several functions absent in NetBSD for real type (more specific - they are just aliases for functions with double). Other functions return less accurate values.
I have to disable a couple unit tests for NetBSD.
E.g. std/conv.d:2835 assert(to!string(r) == to!string(real.min_normal))
see related question:  http://stackoverflow.com/questions/35090322/netbsd-long-double-trouble
But also there are a set of unit tests where I have to reduce accuracy. This problem affects std/internal/math/gammafunction.d, std/math.d, std/numeric.d, std/complex.d
E.g.  std/complex.d:792
assert(sin(complex(2.0L, 0)) == std.math.sin(2.0L));
I replace with:
assert(feqrel(sin(complex(2.0L, 0)).re, std.math.sin(2.0L)) > real.mant_dig-10);
My question is: should I wrap such changes with version(NetBSD) statement or it is acceptable reduce accuracy for all platforms?

PS
You can look to my code here (netbsd_patch branch):
https://github.com/nrTQgc/druntime
https://github.com/nrTQgc/phobos

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.

> Also I have a set of issues with real (long double) type. Several functions absent in NetBSD for real type (more specific - they are just aliases for functions with double). Other functions return less accurate values.
> I have to disable a couple unit tests for NetBSD.
> E.g. std/conv.d:2835 assert(to!string(r) == to!string(real.min_normal))
> see related question:  http://stackoverflow.com/questions/35090322/netbsd-long-double-trouble
> But also there are a set of unit tests where I have to reduce accuracy. This problem affects std/internal/math/gammafunction.d, std/math.d, std/numeric.d, std/complex.d
> E.g.  std/complex.d:792
> assert(sin(complex(2.0L, 0)) == std.math.sin(2.0L));
> I replace with:
> assert(feqrel(sin(complex(2.0L, 0)).re, std.math.sin(2.0L)) > real.mant_dig-10);
> My question is: should I wrap such changes with version(NetBSD) statement or it is acceptable reduce accuracy for all platforms?

This is the same issue Win64 and Android have had.  You should already see version blocks for those in some places, you can do the same.  Take a look at my Android patches for similar tweaks that are still unmerged:

https://gist.github.com/joakim-noah/d936d6a339426ad1fac3
https://gist.github.com/joakim-noah/5c03801fa6c59b1e90df

On 3 Feb 2016 7:30 am, "Joakim via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> 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.

On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 at 07:01:10 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2016 7:30 am, "Joakim via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> 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.

On 2 Feb 2016 7:50 pm, "Nikolay via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> 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.
>
> Also I have a set of issues with real (long double) type. Several
functions absent in NetBSD for real type (more specific - they are just aliases for functions with double). Other functions return less accurate values.
> I have to disable a couple unit tests for NetBSD.
> E.g. std/conv.d:2835 assert(to!string(r) == to!string(real.min_normal))
> see related question:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/35090322/netbsd-long-double-trouble
> But also there are a set of unit tests where I have to reduce accuracy.
This problem affects std/internal/math/gammafunction.d, std/math.d, std/numeric.d, std/complex.d
> E.g.  std/complex.d:792
> assert(sin(complex(2.0L, 0)) == std.math.sin(2.0L));
> I replace with:
> assert(feqrel(sin(complex(2.0L, 0)).re, std.math.sin(2.0L)) >
real.mant_dig-10);
> My question is: should I wrap such changes with version(NetBSD) statement
or it is acceptable reduce accuracy for all platforms?
>
> PS
> You can look to my code here (netbsd_patch branch):
> https://github.com/nrTQgc/druntime
> https://github.com/nrTQgc/phobos
>
>

Is NetBSD similar to FreeBSD in that you have 80-bit reals but only the first 53 bits of the mantissa are used?

I don't know how accurate LDC is when it sets up compile time float properties.  But what do you get when:

pragma (msg, real.sizeof);
pragma (msg, real.mant_dig);

Alternatively, use a C program with printfs for:

sizeof(long double)
LDBL_MANT_DIG

To make sure both ldc and gcc are agreeable.

Have a look at rt/dmain2.d (look for fldcw) if the problem is because of
what I describe above.

On 3 Feb 2016 8:35 am, "Joakim via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> 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" <
digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> 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.  :-)

On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 at 07:45:23 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2016 7:50 pm, "Nikolay via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
> Is NetBSD similar to FreeBSD in that you have 80-bit reals but only the first 53 bits of the mantissa are used?
>
> I don't know how accurate LDC is when it sets up compile time float properties.  But what do you get when:
>
> pragma (msg, real.sizeof);
> pragma (msg, real.mant_dig);
>
> Alternatively, use a C program with printfs for:
>
> sizeof(long double)
> LDBL_MANT_DIG
>
> To make sure both ldc and gcc are agreeable.
>
> Have a look at rt/dmain2.d (look for fldcw) if the problem is because of
> what I describe above.

I suppose it is not similar FreeBSD ( according https://www.netbsd.org/changes/changes-7.0.html#x86 )

On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 at 06:25:49 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 February 2016 at 18:45:20 UTC, Nikolay wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Is it possible to compile dmd with ldc?
There are some additional changes in druntime for dmd comparing with ldc. So even working NetBSD dmd compiler is not full solution. I think new platforms will have troubles until we have separate branches for druntime/phobos in LDC/GDC and patch direction master -> LDC/GDC.

On 3 February 2016 at 10:25, Nikolay via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 at 07:45:23 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
>> On 2 Feb 2016 7:50 pm, "Nikolay via Digitalmars-d" < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>>
>> Is NetBSD similar to FreeBSD in that you have 80-bit reals but only the first 53 bits of the mantissa are used?
>>
>> I don't know how accurate LDC is when it sets up compile time float properties.  But what do you get when:
>>
>> pragma (msg, real.sizeof);
>> pragma (msg, real.mant_dig);
>>
>> Alternatively, use a C program with printfs for:
>>
>> sizeof(long double)
>> LDBL_MANT_DIG
>>
>> To make sure both ldc and gcc are agreeable.
>>
>> Have a look at rt/dmain2.d (look for fldcw) if the problem is because of
>> what I describe above.
>>
>
> I suppose it is not similar FreeBSD ( according
> https://www.netbsd.org/changes/changes-7.0.html#x86 )
>

That is a relatively recent change with respect to the age of NetBSD.  :-)

I guess that in LDC the intrinsic for std.math.sin is forwarded to NetBSD libm.sinl?

On Wednesday, 3 February 2016 at 10:36:31 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> On 3 February 2016 at 10:25, Nikolay via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
>
>
> That is a relatively recent change with respect to the age of NetBSD.  :-)
>
> I guess that in LDC the intrinsic for std.math.sin is forwarded to NetBSD libm.sinl?

Yes but https://www.netbsd.org/changes/changes-7.0.html#libm :
Most transcendent functions are stubbed out