| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Mumit Khan wrote: > Are people happy/ok with the fact that gcc on win32 produces a program > called a.exe by default? For example, > > $ gcc foo.c > > will create a.exe. This is of course not really expected on DOS/Windows > world, and causes all sorts of confusion. Also, this is simply lame even > on Unix, and this historical bit should've disappeared long ago, but > won't since it's a convention now. > > I'd like to move to creating <name>.exe, where <name> is the first file > on the list you provided to gcc. > > $ gcc foo1.c foo2.c foo3.c > > will produce foo1.exe, not a.exe as it does now. > > Is this something we should change?? Yep. I agree entirely. An output of <name> or even <name>.exe would be justified on Unix boxes also in my opinion. I don't know why Unix people still insist on making things harder and more cryptic then they have to be. I think it's an ego powertrip thing or something. Brendan Simon. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |