[#8136] Confused exception handling in Continuation Context — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...>

Hi all

13 messages 2006/07/06

[#8248] One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — "Curt Hibbs" <ml.chibbs@...>

I just posted this to ruby-talk. But I would also like to discuss this

33 messages 2006/07/18
[#8264] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — Charlie Savage <cfis@...> 2006/07/19

From my experience using both tool chains on Windows (for the ruby-prof

[#8266] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — "Curt Hibbs" <ml.chibbs@...> 2006/07/19

Tim, I'm going to top reply since your post was so long. I'm interested in

[#8267] Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? — Charlie Savage <cfis@...> 2006/07/19

> Tim, I'm going to top reply since your post was so long. I'm interested in

[#8271] my sandboxing extension!! — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>

I have (what feels like) very exciting news. I finally sat down to code up my

17 messages 2006/07/19

[#8430] Re: doc patch: weakref. — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...>

> -----Original Message-----

19 messages 2006/07/28
[#8434] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/07/29

Hi,

[#8436] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2006/07/29

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#8437] Re: doc patch: weakref. — Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@...> 2006/07/29

On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 07:37:24PM +0900, Daniel Berger wrote:

[#8441] Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...>

I have the following code:

18 messages 2006/07/30
[#8442] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — nobu@... 2006/07/30

Hi,

[#8443] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...> 2006/07/30

Why does this:

[#8445] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/07/30

Hi,

[#8454] Re: Inconsistency in scoping during module_eval? — "Charles O Nutter" <headius@...> 2006/07/31

So to clarify...

Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005?

From: "Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@...>
Date: 2006-07-21 15:07:52 UTC
List: ruby-core #8333
On 7/18/06, Curt Hibbs <ml.chibbs@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for taking the time to post such a detailed account. Now that you
> mention it, I have encountered the very same problem myself with OpenSSL. I
> actually gave up trying to solve the compile problem when I found a
> pre-built binary for OpenSSL.

I'm on vacation, so of necessity my post and details will be limited.

I have *never* had a problem compiling OpenSSL. (Well, almost. They
accepted some makefile patches that I gave them to shut up bogus
warnings/errors in VC2005. After that, though, I had no problems.)

MASM is now also available as a free download, so I expect that I
could do the assembly compile, too. I might have even already done it
with the netwide assembler.

OpenSSL and zlib are good libraries to compile, and I've never had a
problem with them. The extensions are a little harder, and a lot of
makefiles are written stupidly (e.g., they run install not $(INSTALL)
which should protect you against stupid things).

To the real question, though, we *should* be using the *native*
compiler for any given platform. I would *never* use gcc on HP-UX, for
example, if I wanted anything approaching performance or
compatibility.

If there is a problem in the toolkit that *Ruby* provides for
*extensions*, we need to find ways to make the toolkit for Ruby
extensions larger. Things like GSL, however, probably need to have
bugfixes and patches filed against the GSL project to make it work
well with non-Unix platforms. There's *never* a problem with producing
your own Makefile ... or Rakefile.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * austin@zieglers.ca

In This Thread

Prev Next