TCC 11/TCC 12 - can't load msvcrt-ruby18.dll

  • This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
#1
I'd like to use the internal support for Ruby. My expectation is that the load time would be shorter?

I'm running

TCC 11,00,52 Windows 7 [Version 6,1,7601]
TCC Build 52 Windows 7 Build 7601 Service Pack 1

It's 64-bit W7.

if I try
[C:\]echo %@ruby[p 3 +4]
TCC: (Sys) Could not load Ruby dll (msvcrt-ruby18.dll)
p 3 +4


it doesn't work.
TCC12 x64 shows the same behaviour. According to the docs TC12 supports ruby 1.8 and 1.9. I've installed the version 1.9.2pl180 from rubyinstaller.org. The name of the DLL is msvcrt-ruby191.dll for the 1.9.2 version!
Can I define the path/name of the dll to load? I couldn't find anything in the docs or online.

Is there any way to get internal Ruby support in TCC?

thank you for your help.
 
Oct 18, 2008
263
1
#2
I'd like to use the internal support for Ruby. My expectation is that the load time would be shorter?

I'm running

TCC 11,00,52 Windows 7 [Version 6,1,7601]
TCC Build 52 Windows 7 Build 7601 Service Pack 1

It's 64-bit W7.

if I try
[C:\]echo %@ruby[p 3 +4]
TCC: (Sys) Could not load Ruby dll (msvcrt-ruby18.dll)
p 3 +4


it doesn't work.
TCC12 x64 shows the same behaviour. According to the docs TC12 supports ruby 1.8 and 1.9. I've installed the version 1.9.2pl180 from rubyinstaller.org. The name of the DLL is msvcrt-ruby191.dll for the 1.9.2 version!
Can I define the path/name of the dll to load? I couldn't find anything in the docs or online.

Is there any way to get internal Ruby support in TCC?

thank you for your help.
Would it make sense to add in addition to the check box to add ruby
support, the version of ruby too -- many time once a new version is released (in this case ruby) the older version are not available any more

check with filehippo.com to see if older ruby version are there
 

rconn

Administrator
Staff member
May 14, 2008
10,096
85
#3
I'd like to use the internal support for Ruby. My expectation is that the load time would be shorter?
There's two problems here:

1) The Ruby developers changed the name of the library that embedded Ruby needs. This is inept (and a strong argument against embedding Ruby in any application!), but can be worked around by looking for multiple library names (as I have in the past with Ruby 1.8 and 1.9).

2) The second inept and more unforgivable problem is they removed and/or renamed a number of the internal Ruby functions in 1.9.x, which means anyone wanting to embed 1.9.x has to rewrite all their embedded Ruby code. I will take a look at that but I don't know how long it is going to take to implement (if it's doable at all).
 
#4
I will take a look at that but I don't know how long it is going to take to implement (if it's doable at all).
Rex, I appreciate your response. The change from ruby 1.8 to 1.9 was a big one. I don't think embedding script languages is a USP for TCC. I wouldn't rank it high on the backlog.

best regards,
scooter_de
 

rconn

Administrator
Staff member
May 14, 2008
10,096
85
#5
Rex, I appreciate your response. The change from ruby 1.8 to 1.9 was a big one. I don't think embedding script languages is a USP for TCC. I wouldn't rank it high on the backlog.
After spending several hours trying to get the embedded 1.9.2 code to work, I have to say that it's hopeless. I thought that the embedded Perl for Windows was the worst one I'd seen, but Ruby 1.9.2 has it beat. Some of the critical APIs are missing, others are renamed, and the rest don't work at all (most of them crash). Even the simplest example code from the Ruby docs crashes.

This is going to require debugging & fixing the Ruby code itself, and I don't have the time to do that at this point. 1.8 and 1.9 do seem to work, so I'd recommend sticking to that (and hope that 2.0 is a better job).