[#7055] More on VC++ 2005 — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>

Okay. I've got Ruby compiling. I'm attempting to get everything in

17 messages 2006/01/05
[#7058] Re: More on VC++ 2005 — nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@...> 2006/01/06

Hi,

[#7084] mathn: ugly warnings — hadmut@... (Hadmut Danisch)

Hi,

22 messages 2006/01/10
[#7097] Re: mathn: ugly warnings — Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@...> 2006/01/10

Hadmut Danisch wrote:

[#7098] Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/01/10

Daniel Berger wrote:

[#7118] Re: Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/01/12

*Dean Wampler *<deanwampler gmail.com> writes:

[#7226] Fwd: Re: Question about massive API changes — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>

Hello,

23 messages 2006/01/28
[#7228] Re: Question about massive API changes — Caleb Tennis <caleb@...> 2006/01/28

>

Re: More on VC++ 2005

From: "U.Nakamura" <usa@...>
Date: 2006-01-06 03:42:54 UTC
List: ruby-core #7063
Hello,

In message "Re: More on VC++ 2005"
    on Jan.06,2006 12:24:08, <nobuyoshi.nakada@ge.com> wrote:
| > | Is .manifest file really mandatory?  I don't know how it is
| > | used, but /manifest:no linker option seems to suppress making
| > | it.
| > 
| > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms235624.aspx
| 
| I see.  Is it true for .so files?

It seems that DLL does not need .manifest if base .exe uses
same .manifest .
So, in this case, we will have to create only ruby.exe.manifest
and rubyw.exe.manifest .


Regards.
-- 
U.Nakamura <usa@garbagecollect.jp>



In This Thread