I recently stumbled across an ARM initiative to fund OSS project ports to 64-bit ARM by providing free access to build/CI servers:

https://github.com/WorksOnArm/cluster

It is administered by an ISP called Packet.net and funded by ARM. I contacted Ed at Packet and he encouraged the LDC devs to apply by opening on issue at that github, though he'd like us to have two applicants.  Alternately, he suggested contacting one of the already approved projects, like this one setup for llvm earlier this month, and getting access through them to their server:

https://github.com/WorksOnArm/cluster/issues/24

David and Kai, as the maintainers of the ldc project, mind filing an issue there for ldc, to apply for an ldc CI?  Alternately, we could talk to one of the approved projects and try going through them.

I want to look at AArch64 porting, but unfortunately no access to any hardware at the moment.  Even a linux/AArch64 shell account alone would be good to fix some porting issues.

[I'm in contact with a guy who would also be willing to provide us with an AArch64 CI box and who's currently trying to set up GitHub integration.]

On 27 Dec 2017, at 14:10, kinke via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:
> [I'm in contact with a guy who would also be willing to provide us with an AArch64 CI box and who's currently trying to set up GitHub integration.]

That's good to hear. Ideally, we would have two boxes (or one beefier one) anyway – one for CI testing, and an environment to investigate regressions/… as they arise beyond what can easily be done with cross-compilation.

 — David

On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 at 14:49:29 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2017, at 14:10, kinke via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:
>> [I'm in contact with a guy who would also be willing to provide us with an AArch64 CI box and who's currently trying to set up GitHub integration.]
>
> That's good to hear. Ideally, we would have two boxes (or one beefier one) anyway – one for CI testing, and an environment to investigate regressions/… as they arise beyond what can easily be done with cross-compilation.
>
>  — David

So... all you need is a Raspberry Pi 3 or 2 (v1.2)?

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Raspberry_Pi

    "The Raspberry Pi 3 uses a Broadcom BCM2837 SoC with a 1.2 GHz 64-bit quad-core ARM Cortex-A53 processor, with 512 KB shared L2 cache.[26]"

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/ARM_Cortex-A53

    "Microarchitecture	ARMv8-A"

On 2 Jan 2018, at 12:52, Chris Katko via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:
> So... all you need is a Raspberry Pi 3 or 2 (v1.2)?

A Raspberry Pi is better than nothing, but only 1 GB of RAM and particularly the lack of proper storage (while also only spotting Fast Ethernet over USB) makes it quite painful to use for compiler development. I've tried using an ODROID-X board for ARMv7 back in the day, but cross-compiling and using QEMU was less of a hassle in the end.

 — David

On Saturday, 23 December 2017 at 09:53:51 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> I recently stumbled across an ARM initiative to fund OSS project ports to 64-bit ARM by providing free access to build/CI servers:
>
> https://github.com/WorksOnArm/cluster
>
> It is administered by an ISP called Packet.net and funded by ARM. I contacted Ed at Packet and he encouraged the LDC devs to apply by opening on issue at that github, though he'd like us to have two applicants.  Alternately, he suggested contacting one of the already approved projects, like this one setup for llvm earlier this month, and getting access through them to their server:
>
> https://github.com/WorksOnArm/cluster/issues/24
>
> David and Kai, as the maintainers of the ldc project, mind filing an issue there for ldc, to apply for an ldc CI?  Alternately, we could talk to one of the approved projects and try going through them.
>
> I want to look at AArch64 porting, but unfortunately no access to any hardware at the moment.  Even a linux/AArch64 shell account alone would be good to fix some porting issues.

Let me know if this doesn't work out - I can pay for a couple of ARM servers if it helps.

On Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 04:01:40 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> On Saturday, 23 December 2017 at 09:53:51 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>> [...]
>
> Let me know if this doesn't work out - I can pay for a couple of ARM servers if it helps.

Too late for me, I'll be getting access to some 64-bit Android devices again in a couple days.

David, any plans to apply for a 64-bit ARM server from Packet?  Even though I don't need it anymore, it might make a useful CI box.

On Tuesday, 16 January 2018 at 05:40:26 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 January 2018 at 04:01:40 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
>> On Saturday, 23 December 2017 at 09:53:51 UTC, Joakim wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Let me know if this doesn't work out - I can pay for a couple of ARM servers if it helps.
>
> Too late for me, I'll be getting access to some 64-bit Android devices again in a couple days.
>
> David, any plans to apply for a 64-bit ARM server from Packet?  Even though I don't need it anymore, it might make a useful CI box.

I just saw this month-old announcement of a free ARM64 CI for OSS projects, should be easier to setup than the ARM application process I brought up before:

http://blog.shippable.com/shippable-arm-packet-deliver-native-ci-cd-for-arm-architecture

I know Kai has an AArch64 buildbot set up at Scaleway already, but maybe this would work better, now that the AArch64 port is almost done.

On Sunday, 5 August 2018 at 18:45:01 UTC, Joakim wrote:
> I just saw this month-old announcement of a free ARM64 CI for OSS projects, should be easier to setup than the ARM application process I brought up before:
>
> http://blog.shippable.com/shippable-arm-packet-deliver-native-ci-cd-for-arm-architecture
>
> I know Kai has an AArch64 buildbot set up at Scaleway already, but maybe this would work better, now that the AArch64 port is almost done.

Sounds interesting; I signed up yesterday with GitHub, but can only manage my own repos, so David Or Kai would apparently need to register our organization.

On 6 Aug 2018, at 10:20, kinke via digitalmars-d-ldc wrote:
> Sounds interesting; I signed up yesterday with GitHub, but can only manage my own repos, so David Or Kai would apparently need to register our organization.

I had the same problem, until I granted it access to "private" repositories (as per the GitHub permissions it requests when you tick the respective box on its settings page). It was listed as an authorized application for ldc-developers before, so not sure what's going on…

Either way, it should work now, although I didn't configure any builds yet.

 — David