Targeting Borland's compiler on Windows

All,

How can I get ‘mkmf’ to generate a Makefile suitable for Borland’s bcc32 on
Windows XP? Does anybody have any advice using Borland for compiling
extensions? The list archive is bare…

Thanks,
Gavin

···


Gavin Sinclair Software Engineer
Sydney, Australia Soyabean Software Pty Ltd

All,

How can I get ‘mkmf’ to generate a Makefile suitable for Borland’s bcc32 on
Windows XP? Does anybody have any advice using Borland for compiling
extensions? The list archive is bare…

Thanks,
Gavin


Gavin Sinclair Software Engineer
Sydney, Australia Soyabean Software Pty Ltd

So far, from browsing ‘mkmf’ source, I’ve found that much depends on
RUBY_PLATFORM, and CONFIG[“CC”], etc.

i.e. it assumes that since my Ruby installation was built by MSVC, so my
extensions shall be built with MSVC. Sigh…

Gavin

···

From: “Gavin Sinclair” gsinclair@soyabean.com.au

Hello Gavin,

Wednesday, October 02, 2002, 10:49:06 AM, you wrote:

i.e. it assumes that since my Ruby installation was built by MSVC, so my
extensions shall be built with MSVC. Sigh…

are you ever assembled libraries compiled by different compilers?
there is so many caveats… mangling conventions (“_” and so on),
parameter passing, internal libraries (sush as for “long long”
multiplication)

···


Best regards,
Bulat mailto:bulatz@integ.ru

Hello Gavin,

Wednesday, October 02, 2002, 10:49:06 AM, you wrote:

i.e. it assumes that since my Ruby installation was built by MSVC, so my
extensions shall be built with MSVC. Sigh…

are you ever assembled libraries compiled by different compilers?
there is so many caveats… mangling conventions (“_” and so on),
parameter passing, internal libraries (sush as for “long long”
multiplication)


Best regards,
Bulat mailto:bulatz@integ.ru

It must be possible, though?

···

From: “Bulat Ziganshin” bulatz@integ.ru

Hello Gavin,

Wednesday, October 02, 2002, 12:35:30 PM, you wrote:

i.e. it assumes that since my Ruby installation was built by MSVC, so my
extensions shall be built with MSVC. Sigh…

are you ever assembled libraries compiled by different compilers?
there is so many caveats… mangling conventions (“_” and so on),
parameter passing, internal libraries (sush as for “long long”
multiplication)

It must be possible, though?

no. problems with interfacing code from two compilers is much more
than hacking mkmf or just recompiling ruby with bcc. may be you can
use cygwin or mingw free compilers?

···


Best regards,
Bulat mailto:bulatz@integ.ru

If you suggest compiling with mingw or cygwin, then I must be able to compile
the extension with bcc, so long as I compile Ruby with bcc in the first place.
I will try this tomorrow.

(I’ve tried Cygwin before, but fell over with ‘dlltool’ trying to convert a
library…)

Gavin

···

----- Original Message -----
From: “Bulat Ziganshin” bulatz@integ.ru

are you ever assembled libraries compiled by different compilers?
there is so many caveats… mangling conventions (“_” and so on),
parameter passing, internal libraries (sush as for “long long”
multiplication)

It must be possible, though?

no. problems with interfacing code from two compilers is much more
than hacking mkmf or just recompiling ruby with bcc. may be you can
use cygwin or mingw free compilers?

Bulat mailto:bulatz@integ.ru

If you suggest compiling with mingw or cygwin, then I must be able to compile
the extension with bcc, so long as I compile Ruby with bcc in the first
place.
I will try this tomorrow.

Having said that, there seems to be no instructions given in the source
distribution about compiling with Borland. SIGH…

···

----- Original Message -----
From: “Gavin Sinclair” gsinclair@soyabean.com.au

Hello Gavin,

Wednesday, October 02, 2002, 1:12:36 PM, you wrote:

If you suggest compiling with mingw or cygwin, then I must be able to compile
the extension with bcc, so long as I compile Ruby with bcc in the first place.

yes, you are right

···


Best regards,
Bulat mailto:bulatz@integ.ru