[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Building Ruby by newbi on Win32

dingo

9/1/2006 7:02:00 AM

Hi, All,

My first post here:) I am trying something I have been doing with Lua
for years - dragging Ruby source files into an empty VS project and
trying to build it. That's all on Win32 XP with MSVS. It doesn't
compile! Missing config.h, which I can't find anywhere in ruby source
except for VMS, not for Win32, some constants defined in parse.c are
used in lex.c and so they don't compile either. Any ideas as I can
succeed at what I am doing? I hope I am not trying to do something
people have never expected anyone to do:)
I am still browsing through the web site in search of any info as to
what might be going on, but will appreciate ideas and pointers here as
well.

Thanks
11 Answers

David Vallner

9/1/2006 8:47:00 AM

0

dingo wrote:
> Hi, All,
>
> My first post here:) I am trying something I have been doing with Lua
> for years - dragging Ruby source files into an empty VS project and
> trying to build it. That's all on Win32 XP with MSVS. It doesn't
> compile! Missing config.h, which I can't find anywhere in ruby source
> except for VMS, not for Win32, some constants defined in parse.c are
> used in lex.c and so they don't compile either. Any ideas as I can
> succeed at what I am doing? I hope I am not trying to do something
> people have never expected anyone to do:)

config.h is, confusingly enough, a header file with configuration.
Machine and user-specific configuration. Usually a configuration script,
confusingly called "configure", generates this header file, and a
makefile you can use to build the program. This essential is usually
described in a file someone confusingly named INSTALL or README,
sneakily hidden in the main directory of the source archive.

Welcome to the POSIX build process. Lua is an exception rather than a
rule in that you can build it that way due to being a very simple
language and environment. Whoever makes the one-click installer might eb
able to describe how to build Ruby using MSVS in more detail, I'd just
get MinGW and use a POSIX environment where the ./configure && make all
install incantation works.

David Vallner

dingo

9/1/2006 8:48:00 AM

0

Never mind, folks,
Built it:) A ton of warnings of all sorts, but nevertheless.


dingo wrote:
> Hi, All,
>
> My first post here:) I am trying something I have been doing with Lua
> for years - dragging Ruby source files into an empty VS project and
> trying to build it. That's all on Win32 XP with MSVS. It doesn't
> compile! Missing config.h, which I can't find anywhere in ruby source
> except for VMS, not for Win32, some constants defined in parse.c are
> used in lex.c and so they don't compile either. Any ideas as I can
> succeed at what I am doing? I hope I am not trying to do something
> people have never expected anyone to do:)
> I am still browsing through the web site in search of any info as to
> what might be going on, but will appreciate ideas and pointers here as
> well.
>
> Thanks

dingo

9/1/2006 9:31:00 AM

0

Sorry, saw your note too late - not vary familiar with Google groups
yet.

Thanks anyhow. Yeah, I first did the configure thing, according to the
readme file [the instructions for this have one step missing BTW too]
and then noticed that it produced the needed config.h. Had to poke
around with a few other things here and there to finally have it built.


Also the POSIX build process produces executable that is about 40%
larger then my release build. Go figure:)

D.

David Vallner wrote:
> dingo wrote:
> > Hi, All,
> >
> > My first post here:) I am trying something I have been doing with Lua
> > for years - dragging Ruby source files into an empty VS project and
> > trying to build it. That's all on Win32 XP with MSVS. It doesn't
> > compile! Missing config.h, which I can't find anywhere in ruby source
> > except for VMS, not for Win32, some constants defined in parse.c are
> > used in lex.c and so they don't compile either. Any ideas as I can
> > succeed at what I am doing? I hope I am not trying to do something
> > people have never expected anyone to do:)
>
> config.h is, confusingly enough, a header file with configuration.
> Machine and user-specific configuration. Usually a configuration script,
> confusingly called "configure", generates this header file, and a
> makefile you can use to build the program. This essential is usually
> described in a file someone confusingly named INSTALL or README,
> sneakily hidden in the main directory of the source archive.
>
> Welcome to the POSIX build process. Lua is an exception rather than a
> rule in that you can build it that way due to being a very simple
> language and environment. Whoever makes the one-click installer might eb
> able to describe how to build Ruby using MSVS in more detail, I'd just
> get MinGW and use a POSIX environment where the ./configure && make all
> install incantation works.
>
> David Vallner

David Vallner

9/1/2006 3:28:00 PM

0

dingo wrote:
> Also the POSIX build process produces executable that is about 40%
> larger then my release build. Go figure:)
>

Compiling in support for extra features or creating unoptimized code by
default maybe? At least Curt Hibbs' builds and Linux ones create a
static executable that invokes the interpreter stored in ruby18.dll, so
there might be some size overhead appearing around those parts too.

I can't really vouch for MinGW or whateer you used as far as code
compactness is concerned.

*shrug*

David Vallner

*US*

8/23/2010 8:37:00 PM

0

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:50:05 -0500, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:

>* US * wrote in news:kog37611bc6nv5qkk1cad3fuaq8ucgs3lo@4ax.com:
>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:34:13 -0500, RD Sandman <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>
>>>... the conspiracy theory ...
>>
>> You actually believe that a guy on dialysis
>> in a cave in Afghanistan managed to
>> disable and defeat NORAD and the
>> Pentagon itself.
>>
>> http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911stand.html?q=911...
>>
>
>NORAD defeated ...

Thanks to Cheney.

The impacts didn't drop those buildings.

Gunner Asch

8/23/2010 9:33:00 PM

0

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:48:02 -0500, RD Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:

>> agencies. These federal whistleblowers claim that in an effort to
>> avoid having to hold any individual accountable, the 9/11 Commission
>> turned a blind eye on FBI agent-provided evidence before September 11
>> regarding the 9/11 plot.
>
>The fucking FBI turned a blind eye to it. There were reports from both
>Arizona and Florida about middle eastern men taking flying lessons with
>no interest in landing.

As I recall..it was the Clinton FBI that turned a blind eye..and it was
a Clinton appointee...Jamie Gorelick... that did the dramatic and
incredibly horrific " Wall "..where one group of feds was not allowed to
know what the others knew.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/142...

Hillary Appointee Tied to 9/11 Blunder
Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:32 a.m. EDT



Press reports on Friday about a government report that offers new
evidence on how the CIA failed to warn the FBI when two of the 9/11
hijackers entered the U.S. made no mention of the role played in the
disastrous bungle by Hillary Clinton's Justice Department protege Jamie
Gorelick.

Typical was coverage in the Los Angeles Times, which chronicled the
efforts of a frustrated CIA agent who desperately tried to warn the FBI
that Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar had migrated to San Diego after
attending an Al Qaeda planning session in Malaysia 20 months before the
9/11 attacks.

But instead of delivering the alert that could have helped foil the 9/11
plot, the CIA agent was told to cease and desist by superiors. Noted the
Times:

"A chilling new detail of U.S. intelligence failures emerged Thursday,
when the Justice Department disclosed that about 20 months before the
Sept. 11 attacks, a CIA official had blocked a memo intended to alert
the FBI that two known Al Qaeda operatives had entered the country.

"The two men were among the 19 hijackers who crashed airliners into the
World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania."

As recounted by the Times, in January 2000, a CIA employee began
drafting a memo addressed to the FBI's Bin Laden unit chief at bureau
headquarters and to its New York field office. The memo contained
virtually all of the details known to the agency, about two of the
soon-to-be 9/11 hijackers.

"But at 4 p.m. that day," the Times said, another CIA Bin Laden desk
officer "added a note to the memo: 'pls hold off on [memo] for now per
[the CIA deputy chief of Bin Laden unit].'"

Eight days later, in mid-January, the first agent inquired about his
warning on Alhazmi and Almihdhar.

The FBI's 9/11 report reached no conclusion as to why the critical CIA
intelligence wasn't shared with the bureau.

But for anyone who watched the 9/11 Commission hearings, the answer is
clear.

The FBI and CIA were hamstrung by the "Wall," a set of Justice
Department directives issued by Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick
that made it illegal for the two agencies to cooperate with each other
in terrorism probes.

Testifying before the 9/11 Commission last year, former Attorney General
John Ashcroft contended that "the single greatest structural cause for
September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and
intelligence agents"

"[Gorelick] built that wall" said Ashcroft, "through a March 1995 memo."

Gorelick's now notorious wall memo instructed prosecutors in the 1993
World Trade Center bombing case:

"We believe that it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that
will more clearly separate the counterintelligence investigation from
the more limited, but continued, criminal investigations. These
procedures, which go beyond what is legally required, will prevent any
risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that [the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act] is being used to avoid procedural
safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."

According to now retired New York Times columnist William Safire,
Gorelick was tapped for her post by Hillary ally Webster Hubbell after
he resigned from the Justice Department in 1994 to face charges of
overbilling his legal clients.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Gorelick fulfilled much the same
role as Hubbell had, acting as Hillary's "eyes and ears at the Justice
Department."

While news of the CIA's scuttled 9/11 warning was a top story throughout
the day on Friday - with nearly two dozen mainstream press reports,
including a front page story in the New York Times - none of the reports
so much as mentioned Gorelick's name; let alone her connection to Mrs.
Clinton.



I am the Sword of my Family
and the Shield of my Nation.
If sent, I will crush everything you have built,
burn everything you love,
and kill every one of you.
(Hebrew quote)

*US*

8/23/2010 9:49:00 PM

0

On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:33:11 -0700, Gummer Ass <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote:

>... the Clinton FBI ...

Bush stopped them from investigating the bin Ladens
at the beginning of his occupation.

Dan

8/23/2010 11:15:00 PM

0

On 8/23/2010 2:33 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:48:02 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>> agencies. These federal whistleblowers claim that in an effort to
>>> avoid having to hold any individual accountable, the 9/11 Commission
>>> turned a blind eye on FBI agent-provided evidence before September 11
>>> regarding the 9/11 plot.
>>
>> The fucking FBI turned a blind eye to it. There were reports from both
>> Arizona and Florida about middle eastern men taking flying lessons with
>> no interest in landing.
>
> As I recall..it was the Clinton FBI that turned a blind eye..and it was
> a Clinton appointee...Jamie Gorelick... that did the dramatic and
> incredibly horrific " Wall "..where one group of feds was not allowed to
> know what the others knew.

You recall incorrectly, as usual.

Dan

RD Sandman

8/24/2010 10:19:00 PM

0

Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com> wrote in
news:urp57614h5unpenbqqjeqpvph0rvut36tv@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:48:02 -0500, RD Sandman
> <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>
>>> agencies. These federal whistleblowers claim that in an effort to
>>> avoid having to hold any individual accountable, the 9/11 Commission
>>> turned a blind eye on FBI agent-provided evidence before September 11
>>> regarding the 9/11 plot.
>>
>>The fucking FBI turned a blind eye to it. There were reports from both
>>Arizona and Florida about middle eastern men taking flying lessons with
>>no interest in landing.
>
> As I recall..it was the Clinton FBI that turned a blind eye..and it was
> a Clinton appointee...Jamie Gorelick... that did the dramatic and
> incredibly horrific " Wall "..where one group of feds was not allowed
to
> know what the others knew.

Pretty much.



--
Sleep well tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

"There are two kinds of men who never amount to much:
those who cannot do what they are told and
those who cannot do anything else."


*US*

8/24/2010 11:48:00 PM

0

The Bush occupation was informed of the need
to be vigilant about terrorist attacks.

The Bush occupation facilitated terrorist attacks
and made sure the crimes of 9/11 would occur.