Hi,
I am looking for someone who built ruby using Borland c.
Because I don't want to use BIG M$$$ compiler.
And dont' want to feel like lost without them.
And I am sure still there is somebody still using Borland C.
Anybody give me a hand pls.
I think bcc32 directory which comes with the ruby trunk is not up to
date.
And I have no makefile experience to fix it up and commit to the ruby
community.
I get the following error.
D:\Ruby_test_ver>bcc32\configure.bat
MAKE Version 5.2 Copyright (c) 1987, 2000 Borland
MAKE Version 5.2 Copyright (c) 1987, 2000 Borland
Creating Makefile
type "`make'" to make ruby for bccwin32.
D:\Ruby_test_ver>make
MAKE Version 5.2 Copyright (c) 1987, 2000 Borland
Error ./common.mk 611: Redefinition of target 'opt_sc.inc'
Error ./common.mk 611: Redefinition of target 'optinsn.inc'
Error ./common.mk 611: Redefinition of target 'optunifs.inc'
Error ./common.mk 611: Redefinition of target 'insns.inc'
Error ./common.mk 611: Redefinition of target 'vmtc.inc'
*** 5 errors during make ***
I edit the common.mk and comment the error lines.
And then I get the other error.
D:\Ruby_test_ver>make
MAKE Version 5.2 Copyright (c) 1987, 2000 Borland
config.h updated.
Creating config.status
Fatal: '.\ruby.h' does not exist - don't know how to make it
Pls help.
OS: WinXP
Comp: Borland C++ 5.82 for Win32 Copyright (c) 1993, 2005 Borland
Actually, I think gcc is probably a more common C compiler than Borland
C, as an alternative to the Microsoft compiler. It's even more popular
on MS Windows, from what I've seen -- though I admit my experience may be
a bit skewed from the average in this regard.
···
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:47:45PM +0900, Yusuf Celik wrote:
Hi,
I am looking for someone who built ruby using Borland c.
Because I don't want to use BIG M$$$ compiler.
And dont' want to feel like lost without them.
And I am sure still there is somebody still using Borland C.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Dr. Ron Paul: "Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when
terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons."
Thanks Chad,
I am really glad that somebody's heard my scream.
I never used gcc before. But I think I will give it a go.
I've been using Borland c++ for a while and quite happy with it.
And now there is a free version can search using "Borland's Free C++
Compiler ".
I guess the problem is in the make file regarding the include directory.
Since I have no experience with Makefiles I don't know how to fix it.
Thanks again Chad appreciated.
With kindest regards
yc
Chad Perrin wrote:
···
Actually, I think gcc is probably a more common C compiler than Borland
C, as an alternative to the Microsoft compiler. It's even more popular
on MS Windows, from what I've seen -- though I admit my experience may
be
a bit skewed from the average in this regard.
Sometimes, something that compiles with one compiler doesn't with
another. Generally, GCC and the MS compiler are among the most important
compilers to people who write software like the Ruby, Perl, and Python
interpreters. I tend to guess the Intel compiler might be third place.
That's one reason I brought up the GCC compiler (the other being you
indicated you had no interest in using the MS compiler). I just thought
you might want to know some more about my reasoning.
···
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 04:16:23PM +0900, Yusuf Celik wrote:
Thanks Chad,
I am really glad that somebody's heard my scream.
I never used gcc before. But I think I will give it a go.
I've been using Borland c++ for a while and quite happy with it.
And now there is a free version can search using "Borland's Free C++
Compiler ".
I guess the problem is in the make file regarding the include directory.
Since I have no experience with Makefiles I don't know how to fix it.
Thanks again Chad appreciated.
With kindest regards
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Phillip J. Haack: "Productivity is not about speed. It's about velocity.
You can be fast, but if you're going in the wrong direction, you're not
helping anyone."
You probably just needed to wait a little bit for the answer to come
through. I see that, since you posted this, someone posted an answer to
the previous question.
Some questions take longer than others to get answered. Some don't ever
get answered -- but it's usually a good idea to give it a day or two to
be sure. If not a day, at least longer than five hours in the early
morning. If only one or two people on the list know the answer to your
questions (like why bcc is becoming obsolete), and they don't check the
email account until evening, 6 AM is probably a little early to give up.
I hope I don't sound like a nag. . . .
···
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 09:16:20PM +0900, Yusuf Celik wrote:
Yusuf Celik wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
>> bcc32 support will be obsolete.
>
> May I ask the reason?
So no reason, ok, fair enough.
I have another question then
Where can I get gcc compiler and how to use to build ruby.exe ?
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
MacUser, Nov. 1990: "There comes a time in the history of any project when
it becomes necessary to shoot the engineers and begin production."
Thanks Chad,
I am really glad that somebody's heard my scream.
I never used gcc before. But I think I will give it a go.
I've been using Borland c++ for a while and quite happy with it.
And now there is a free version can search using "Borland's Free C++
Compiler ".
I guess the problem is in the make file regarding the include directory.
Since I have no experience with Makefiles I don't know how to fix it.
Thanks again Chad appreciated.
With kindest regards
You're quite welcome.
Sometimes, something that compiles with one compiler doesn't with
another. Generally, GCC and the MS compiler are among the most important
compilers to people who write software like the Ruby, Perl, and Python
interpreters. I tend to guess the Intel compiler might be third place.
That's one reason I brought up the GCC compiler (the other being you
indicated you had no interest in using the MS compiler). I just thought
you might want to know some more about my reasoning.
On most "non-Gnu" systems, the native compiler (MS on Windows, Sun's
compilers on Solaris, etc.) are in first place. On Gnu systems, GCC is
in first place. In high-performance computing, I know people who won't
use GCC on an Intel platform, even Linux, but use the Intel compiler.
I actually think I had a copy of the Intel compiler at one point --
there's a version you can download for evaluation purposes. But I gave
away my last Intel box, a P3, and am now a pure AMD lab.
···
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 04:16:23PM +0900, Yusuf Celik wrote:
Hmm Mingw should be enough[ still cygwin is a good thing to have IMHO]
only that there is no need to install all that stuff only to compile
Ruby? http://www.mingw.org/
You've allocated your valuable time to answer my question.
I am really greatfull for that.
I still don't know how to build ruby using MinGW.
This is my last question on this topic.
You've allocated your valuable time to answer my question.
I am really greatfull for that.
I still don't know how to build ruby using MinGW.
This is my last question on this topic.
Adding to the mix of information: if you use cygwin anyway you can as
well use the cygwin ruby package. It's even more hassle free than
compiling yourself. Just my 0.02EUR...
Where can I find any info. regarding how to use cygwin?
Because, I am windows user and no clue how to use cygwin.
With kindest regards
yc
Robert Klemme wrote:
···
2007/7/18, Yusuf Celik <ycelik@oytek.com.tr>:
At least you can lead me to an internet page.
Adding to the mix of information: if you use cygwin anyway you can as
well use the cygwin ruby package. It's even more hassle free than
compiling yourself. Just my 0.02EUR...
It's basically a Unix toolset for MS Windows. Google is your friend:
just searching for "cygwin" gave me the main Cygwin website as the first
hit.
···
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 09:09:12PM +0900, Yusuf Celik wrote:
Thanks Robert,
Where can I find any info. regarding how to use cygwin?
Because, I am windows user and no clue how to use cygwin.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
MacUser, Nov. 1990: "There comes a time in the history of any project when
it becomes necessary to shoot the engineers and begin production."
To start from the beginning,
I wanted to use bcc32 to build ruby,
but Nobuyoshi Nakada said that bcc32 support will be absolute.
Since I had no intention of using M$$$ compiler I asked for an
alternative one.
I was lead to usign gcc (MingGW) which is free and can be used to build
ruby
for Win32.
But I am stuck on how to build ruby using gcc:
For ms compiler the steps are:
1.Execute win32\configure.bat on your build directory.
2.Run nmake