From: Ralph Mason <ralph.mason@...>
Date: 2001-11-26T06:56:54+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:26472] Re: The results are in...

The only difference between a DLL and a SO file is then extension. (Well
from the operating systems point of view)

So to convert a DLL to a SO is pretty stright foward, I'll leaved the
implemtation as an exercise for the reader :-)

The problems with cygwin start when a DLL linked against cygwin is not used
with a cygwin application.  I am sure there must by some way of 'starting
up' cygwin so you can mix (very carefully) cygwin and MSVCRT dll's together,
but I havent found it (and I havent looked). I am pretty sure one could come
up with their own loader that looked at if a DLL is linked against cygwin
and loaded and initalised cygwin before that DLL was loaded.

Ralph

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Hahn" <mchahn@facelink.com>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 2:30 PM
Subject: [ruby-talk:26400] Re: The results are in...


>
> I think you accidently answered a question I posted earlier today.  Am I
too
> interpret this thread as saying that a Ruby compiled in Cygwin cannot load
a
> DLL compiled from MSVC?
>
> When I heard that Ruby could load either a .so or a .DLL I assumed the .so
> was from cygwin and the .DLL was from MSVC (or compatible).  This is
wrong?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ruby-talk-admin@ruby-lang.org
> [mailto:ruby-talk-admin@ruby-lang.org]On Behalf Of Robert Feldt
> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 5:09 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: [ruby-talk:26397] Re: The results are in...
>
>
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> > specifically, ruby165-0.exe
> >
> > http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/ruby/downloads/ruby-install.html
> >
> Ok, we're talking about two different things. I've been talking about
> compiling Matz Ruby source tarball on Cygwin. Sorry, I've been unclear.
>
> > Maybe I misunderstand.  But it seems that I will have 2 options:
> >
> > (1)  Install a similar exe (all parts compiled with MSVC);  Then compile
> > additional extensions with MinGW
> >
> > OR
> >
> > (2)  Compile everything with Cygwin
> >
> > Am I wrong?
> >
> No, but my question was why you think 2 is inferior to 1. But, ok there is
> some added stuff in there, so I guess thats what you're after. My point is
> just that if you have installed Cygwin its kind-of straight-forward to
> build things from sources so IMHO its not a major problem that the
> exe-install distr does not require/support cygwin.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert
>
>