Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From:	"Todd Bandrowsky" <tbandrowsky AT del DOT net>
To:	<mingw32 AT egroups DOT com>
Cc:	<cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Subject:	RE: [mingw32] Re: [RFC] changing gcc default output executable name (a.exe now)
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:08:23 -0500
Message-ID:	<LKEKJCGMEGLCPBEIEEMDEEAPCFAA.tbandrowsky@del.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.5600
In-Reply-To:	<387D5564.789AB78E@ctam.com.au>
Importance:	Normal

I think that a .exe should be created on Windows and a.out created on Unix.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: brendan AT k9 DOT prophecy DOT com DOT au [mailto:brendan AT k9 DOT prophecy DOT com DOT au]On
> Behalf Of Brendan J Simon
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 11:33 PM
> Cc: Mingw32 discussion list at eGroups; cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
> Subject: [mingw32] Re: [RFC] changing gcc default output executable name
> (a.exe now)
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and, access them from
>
> anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days.  Click here for a chance to win a
>
> digital camera.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/337/5/_/13107/_/947766525/
>
> -- Create a poll/survey for your group!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=mingw32&m=1
>
>


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com

- Raw text -