On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Aston <blackapache512-ticket / yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I really like FFI, though I started with DL since at that time FFI won't
> build on windoz.

The building of ffi gem happens under Linux/OSX, until a few weeks ago
the environment of the gem author was borked, and that was the reason
there has been no binary for Windows yet.

> recently few days back I saw some svn msgs suggesting that DL's dependency
> on libffi was removed, since libffi won't build on windoz (again!). so my
> question is will DL in future be based on libffi ? why just not use FFI. Its
> API and idea is very good and ruby like, against DL's idea of giving in C
> snippets to be interpreted by DL ?
>

Ruby core developers state is not compatible with MSVC, and is not
"out of the box", you need to use a script wrapper around configure
which was added recently as contribution my mozilla labs. (msvcc.sh)

I've tried with old Visual C 6.0 and it doesn't work without a lot of
tweaking, the configure process is not great and you still need
certain MSYS tools (bash and such). Haven't tested newer Visual C
versions since semi-official builds use Visual C 6.0

I think that is the reason got rejected.

If someone can work on a CMake configure script, Ruby-Core can use
that to build and install libffi, then I think libffi can be back to
replace DL.

Since time to do that means money, I've money to give for it, $100 USD.

Anyone interested in build a CMake replacement for libffi autoconf
please let me know.
-- 
Luis Lavena
AREA 17
-
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-ExupñÓy