From: Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
Date: 2007-12-13T16:05:47+09:00
Subject: Re: [Spam] Re: What's the status of compiler/compiling on windows?

On Dec 13, 2007 3:57 AM, Joe Swatosh <joe.swatosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2007 1:55 PM, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > And the *reason* it's not a theoretical scenario is that Unix doesn't
> > have this problem (multiple runtimes) in > 99% of cases. Most Unixes
> > only have one runtime installed and cannot actually have another
> > runtime installed. Therefore, there's not multiple heaps involved.
> > Therefore, it's a common case to have an API that says "this C call
> > allocates memory; remember to free it when you're done with it." There
> > should be an library_api_free call for every library (e.g., zlib_free,
> > openssl_free, etc.) just in case, but it's Not An Issue on Unix.
>
> If everyone used ruby_xmalloc and ruby_xfree, would this part of the binary
> extension problem be addressed?
>

If memory plays well with my age, I think perl guys created a
PerlCRT.dll back in 2001 to workaround the CRT issues.

The extensions (even perl.exe) was linked against it and thus,
avoiding the msvcr* dilemma.

-- 
Luis Lavena
Multimedia systems
-
A common mistake that people make when trying to design
something completely foolproof is to underestimate
the ingenuity of complete fools.
Douglas Adams