A couple weeks ago I asked whether YARV could compile most Ruby programs
on Win32 (since I could not figure out a satisfactory answer from web
pages to which I was referred). I am still hoping that someone can
apprise me as to the viability of doing this at present. Are
stand-alone Windows executables possible? Is Ruby 1.9 required or does
1.84 work? Can most .rbw programs be compiled? What kind of
performance gain is typical?
Thanks,
Jamal
I grabbed a copy of yarv and tried it out on my powerbook. It was dead-simple to do. You should try this yourself, I bet it'll take you all of an hour including time for a coffee break.
PS: Don't hijack threads, or, Don't trim context. Both are considered Very Bad Form.
On May 22, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Jamal Mazrui wrote:
A couple weeks ago I asked whether YARV could compile most Ruby programs
on Win32 (since I could not figure out a satisfactory answer from web
pages to which I was referred). I am still hoping that someone can
apprise me as to the viability of doing this at present. Are
stand-alone Windows executables possible? Is Ruby 1.9 required or does
1.84 work? Can most .rbw programs be compiled? What kind of
performance gain is typical?
--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant
This is not the purpose of YARV. YARV is not *yet* aiming for an AOT
compiler, but that's a long-term goal as I understand it. Stand-alone
executables may or may not ever be possible in that sense. YARV does
not work with Ruby 1.8.4.
YARV is still a work in progress and should only be used for
experiments, not production.
-austin
On 5/22/06, Jamal Mazrui <Jamal.Mazrui@fcc.gov> wrote:
A couple weeks ago I asked whether YARV could compile most Ruby programs
on Win32 (since I could not figure out a satisfactory answer from web
pages to which I was referred). I am still hoping that someone can
apprise me as to the viability of doing this at present. Are
stand-alone Windows executables possible? Is Ruby 1.9 required or does
1.84 work? Can most .rbw programs be compiled? What kind of
performance gain is typical?
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca
Austin Ziegler wrote:
This is not the purpose of YARV. YARV is not *yet* aiming for an AOT
compiler, but that's a long-term goal as I understand it.
Hmmmm ... an AOT is mentioned in the 2004 RubyConf slides
(http://zenspider.com/dl/rubyconf2004/RubyConf2004_YARV_pub.pdf, slide
14 and the diagram on slide 15).[1] According to the diagram, the AOT
will produce C source code. Interestings
Ahhh, you did say *yet*. Ok. I wonder if the plans have changed from
these old slides.
-- Jim Weirich
[1] I remembered this because it was the first time I had seen the
acronym AOT.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Yeah. The emphasis for YARV -- as I understand it -- is being Rite.
Then being an AOT compiler. 
I think that Eric is right though, YARV
will probably not produce stand-alone Ruby executables, even with C
source for that. It will produce code that can be compiled and linked
against a Ruby run-time (the VM).
-austin
On 5/22/06, Jim Weirich <jim@weirichhouse.org> wrote:
Austin Ziegler wrote:
> This is not the purpose of YARV. YARV is not *yet* aiming for an AOT
> compiler, but that's a long-term goal as I understand it.
Hmmmm ... an AOT is mentioned in the 2004 RubyConf slides
(http://zenspider.com/dl/rubyconf2004/RubyConf2004_YARV_pub.pdf, slide
14 and the diagram on slide 15).[1] According to the diagram, the AOT
will produce C source code. InterestingsAhhh, you did say *yet*. Ok. I wonder if the plans have changed from
these old slides.
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca