From: ptkwt@... (Phil Tomson)
Date: 2004-05-07T14:08:57+09:00
Subject: Re: miniruby.exe & statically linked ruby.exe (Windows)

In article <1LCcnT9GK4kEbAfdSa8jmA@karoo.co.uk>,
daz <dooby@d10.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Phil Tomson wrote:
>> daz wrote:
>> >
>> >Phil Tomson wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've been trying to build a statically linked ruby.exe on windows using
>> >> MSVC.  I think I might have been successful, ...
>> >
>> >I think so, too.
>>
>> Actually, now I don't think so...
>>
>> As you'll recall, I ended up with miniruby.exe and ruby.exe being the same
>> size.  We figured that they were equivilent (which they seem to be),
>> however, the missing part of miniruby.exe is that it can't load shared
>> libs (Win32API.so in this case) and neither can the ruby.exe built this
>> way.... back to the drawing board.
>>
>> Phil
>
>
>Well that'll be because Win32API.so is still dynamically linked to the
>ruby dll which is not in your new path.
>

Well, there's a Win32API.so in ext/Win32API and I explicitly specified the 
whole path to it and got a crash (illegal instruction or somesuch) so I'm 
sure I got the right .so file.

>Time to try the ext\Setup method of static linking libraries?
>

Maybe, it seems I tried it though, and didn't see the binary get any 
larger which is what I would have expected.  On Linux I believe you have 
to edit ext/Setup and then re-run configure, but the Windows configure.bat 
doesn't seem to do much...

Phil