Asp Forum - Best tools for compiling Ruby (Windows)?

Glenn Smith

3/3/2006 10:18:00 PM

Hi

I'd like to figure out how I can download and compile the latest version of
Ruby on Windows. I know I can get Curt's one-click installer, but I'd quite
like the ability to compile it for myself.

Question is, which is the best (free) compiler for the job? Visual C++ or
Borland? Or another?

I have tried to use the MS VC++ Toolkit 2003, with NMAKE 1.5 - both freely
downloadable from MS but as soon as I issue a win32\configure i686-mswin32
(from memory), NMAKE falls over immediately. Can't remember the error
off-hand but if it's important I can run it again.

Am I using the right version of tools? Should I really be using Borland?
(their CPP5.5 is also freely downloadable).

--

All the best
Glenn
Aylesbury, UK

18 Answers

Alex Combas

3/4/2006 4:50:00 AM

Hello,This should help get you started.http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?HowToBuildOnWin... Combashttp://noodlejunkie.blo...

Curt Hibbs

3/4/2006 6:20:00 AM

Glenn Smith

3/4/2006 1:21:00 PM

Thanks Gents - good info as ever.
G

On 04/03/06, Curt Hibbs <ml.chibbs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/3/06, Glenn Smith <glenn.ruby@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I'd like to figure out how I can download and compile the latest version
> of
> > Ruby on Windows. I know I can get Curt's one-click installer, but I'd
> quite
> > like the ability to compile it for myself.
> >
> > Question is, which is the best (free) compiler for the job? Visual C++
> or
> > Borland? Or another?
> >
> > I have tried to use the MS VC++ Toolkit 2003, with NMAKE 1.5 - both
> freely
> > downloadable from MS but as soon as I issue a win32\configure
> i686-mswin32
> > (from memory), NMAKE falls over immediately. Can't remember the error
> > off-hand but if it's important I can run it again.
> >
> > Am I using the right version of tools? Should I really be using
> Borland?
> > (their CPP5.5 is also freely downloadable).
>
> 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
>
>

--

All the best
Glenn
Aylesbury, UK

Wilson Bilkovich

3/4/2006 7:39:00 PM

On 3/3/06, Glenn Smith <glenn.ruby@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'd like to figure out how I can download and compile the latest version of
> Ruby on Windows. I know I can get Curt's one-click installer, but I'd quite
> like the ability to compile it for myself.
>
> Question is, which is the best (free) compiler for the job? Visual C++ or
> Borland? Or another?
>
> I have tried to use the MS VC++ Toolkit 2003, with NMAKE 1.5 - both freely
> downloadable from MS but as soon as I issue a win32\configure i686-mswin32
> (from memory), NMAKE falls over immediately. Can't remember the error
> off-hand but if it's important I can run it again.
>
> Am I using the right version of tools? Should I really be using Borland?
> (their CPP5.5 is also freely downloadable).
>

VC++ 2003 works fine, it's 2005 that's a big change, and difficult to
make function properly.
If you install these three things, you should be able to compile
anything you want on Win32.
1. Visual C++ Toolkit 2003 (free)
2. MS Platform SDK 2003 (free, and you only need to install the
basics. Leave most things unchecked.)
3. MS .NET SDK 1.1 (not! 2.0)

That will give you a new version of NMAKE (don't use 1.5), along with
the compiler and the various headers and libraries you need.

Once you've downloaded and installed these, you'll need to configure
your environment variables. Here's what my vcvars32.bat file looks
like:
@echo off

Set PATH=C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit
2003\bin;C:\Program Files\Microsoft Platform SDK\Bin;%PATH%
Set INCLUDE=C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit
2003\include;C:\Program Files\Microsoft Platform
SDK\Include;C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio .NET
2003\Vc7\include;%INCLUDE%
Set LIB=C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit
2003\lib;C:\Program Files\Microsoft Platform SDK\Lib;C:\Program
Files\Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2003\Vc7\lib;%LIB%

echo Setting Visual C++ environment variables.
echo You lose 1d6 sanity points.
echo.

Rich A.

3/4/2006 10:06:00 PM

I forgot to mention that I was able to compile Ruby 1.8.2
One-click-installer using MS VC++ 2003 last year--sometime between
1.8.2-14 and 1.8.2-15.

These are the exact tools I used to compile:

MS VC++ 2003 Toolkit 1.01
http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vcto...

MS PSDK Feb 2003 (a newer version is available but I used this version)
http://www.microsoft.com/msdownload/platformsdk/sdkupdate/psd...

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Glenn Smith

3/4/2006 10:47:00 PM

I have happily compiled it on my laptop using Visual Studio Enterprise
Edition (SP6). Unfortunately the RUDL package which I use for the odd game
I've written no longer works. Might try recompiling that from source too.

Also, I finally managed to get a good working Linux distro (Zenwalk)
installed (had all sorts of problems with many distros for some reason).
First thing I downloaded and compiled was... well, you know :o)

On 04/03/06, Rich A. <usrlocalinfo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I forgot to mention that I was able to compile Ruby 1.8.2
> One-click-installer using MS VC++ 2003 last year--sometime between
> 1.8.2-14 and 1.8.2-15.
>
> These are the exact tools I used to compile:
>
> MS VC++ 2003 Toolkit 1.01
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vcto...
>
> MS PSDK Feb 2003 (a newer version is available but I used this version)
> http://www.microsoft.com/msdownload/platformsdk/sdkupdate/psd...
>
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-....
>
>

--

All the best
Glenn
Aylesbury, UK

Curt Hibbs

3/5/2006 11:15:00 AM

My mistake -- Wilson is correct, it VC++ 2005 that you should avoid.

Sorry for any confusion,
Curt

On 3/4/06, Rich A. <usrlocalinfo@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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-....
>
>

Kaspar Schiess

3/18/2006 4:56:00 PM

Hello Glenn,

> Question is, which is the best (free) compiler for the job? Visual
> C++ or Borland? Or another?
I won't say mine's best, however all RMagick binary releases are compiled
using mingw and msys. I think they integrate posix/unix stuff nicely with
windows while guaranteeing binary compatibility with other windows builds.

Just thought I'd complete the thread with what works for me.

best regards,
kaspar

--
software manufaktur - rubylab.newfoundedpower.com

Pete10016

3/28/2006 5:50:00 PM

After following the simple:
http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?HowToBuil...

I compiled ruby (latest stable snapshot) fine on Windows2000.
If I do ruby -v I get "ruby 1.8.4 (2006-03-27) [i386-mingw32]", but if I
try and run a ruby script I get:

"no such file found -- urby gems (LoadError)"

I've tried relative and absolute paths.

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Wilson Bilkovich

3/28/2006 6:04:00 PM

On 3/28/06, Peter Piper <pete@nospam.com> wrote:
> After following the simple:
> http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?HowToBuil...
>
> I compiled ruby (latest stable snapshot) fine on Windows2000.
> If I do ruby -v I get "ruby 1.8.4 (2006-03-27) [i386-mingw32]", but if I
> try and run a ruby script I get:
>
> "no such file found -- urby gems (LoadError)"
>
> I've tried relative and absolute paths.
>

Check your "RUBYOPT" environment variable, and clear it out if it has
something in it.

comp.lang.ruby

Best tools for compiling Ruby (Windows)?

Glenn Smith

Alex Combas

Curt Hibbs

Glenn Smith

Wilson Bilkovich

Rich A.

Glenn Smith

Curt Hibbs

Kaspar Schiess

Pete10016

Wilson Bilkovich

x Login to ForumsZone