From: "Rich A." Date: 2006-03-05T06:54:42+09:00 Subject: Re: Best tools for compiling Ruby (Windows)? Curt Hibbs wrote: > Don't use VC++ 2003. Austin Zeigler, and experienced Rubyist, has been > struggling to get Ruby to compile with VC++ 2003 and, as far as I > know, he has not yet succeeded. > > You should have no problem with either VC++ 6.0 SP5, or VC++ 7.1 (aka > VS.NET 2001). > > Curt I think there is some confusion regarding VC++ versions and hope this table is helpful: VC++ 6.0 = IMHO, not very standards-compliant with C++ language VC++ 2002 (7.0) = IMHO, buggy & beta-quality release VC++ 2003 (7.1) = IMHO, very nice! freely downloadable as VC++ 2003 Toolkit 1.01 VC++ 2005 (8.0) = IMHO, bloated with new proprietary features IMHO, VC++ 2003 is the best C++ compiler from Microsoft because it is very standards-compliant and reliable compared to prior versions. Microsoft VC++ Toolkit 2003 1.01 is freely downloadable and is the same optimizing compiler as MS VC++ 2003 PROFESSIONAL. The compiler version displayed by cl.exe is 13.10.3077. However, the lack of debug libraries make it useful only for creating release builds (which is the same quality as the very expensive optimizing compiler). Is Austin running into problems compiling Ruby for debug build or release build? If Ruby builds with VC++ 6.0 but doesn't build with VC++ 2003 for release build, then the Ruby code should be investigated. But if Austin is building for debug, then he needs to obtain the debug libraries which are not included with VC++ 2003 Toolkit. Note that VC++ 2003 Standard has those missing debug libraries. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.