Mail Archives: cygwin/2000/01/13/15:28:39
Matthew,
Your process would still work if gcc didn't append the .exe to the executable
name. You would just do gcc -o myprog$(EXEEXT) instead of gcc -o myprog.
Earnie.
--- Matthew Brown <mbrown AT mediadb DOT net> wrote:
> The process I (and others that I am familiar with) use is to define macros
> for common file extensions such as: EXEEXT, OBJEXT, and LIBEXT. You can
> conditionally define these in the makefile (or in a makefile that is included
> everywhere) to be the proper values for the target platform.
>
> Example using gmake syntax:
> ifeq ($(TARGET_OS), win32)
> EXEEXT=.exe
> OBJEXT=.obj
> LIBEXT=.lib
> else
> ifeq ($(TARGET_OS), cygwin)
> EXEEXT=.exe
> OBJEXT=.o
> LIBEXT=.a
> else
> EXEEXT=
> OBJEXT=.o
> LIBEXT=.a
> endif
> endif
>
> Then when you define your targets:
> foo$(EXEEXT) :
>
> -- Matthew Brown
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andre Oliveira da Costa" <costa AT cade DOT com DOT br>
> To: <cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 1:44 PM
> Subject: RE: [mingw32] Re: [RFC] changing gcc default output executable name
> (a.exe now)
>
>
> > I'd like to ask for comments on another issue related to portability from
> > UNIX --> cygwin, compilation etc.: the way it is now, the linker
> > automagically appends a .exe suffix to the executable filename. If you do
> >
> > gcc -o foo foo.o
> >
> > ld will create foo.exe . I wouldn't complain about it except for the fact
> > that this imposes a serious restriction to portability. For example,
> usually
> > when I try to install a just-compiled application through "make install",
> > all the cp, mv, chmod, strip and install rules refer to "foo" and not
> > "foo.exe", and therefore they (rightfully) complain about missing files.
> So,
> > even if the compilation goes out well, there's always some makefile
> > tweaking involved.
> >
> > I don't think tweaking all these applications to look for "foo.exe" if they
> > can't find "foo" would be the right thing. But I would really like to be
> > able to install the applications I compile without having to tweak all the
> > makefiles. Maybe the solution would be not to add the .exe suffix...
> >
> > Am I missing something or is this a real problem?
> >
> > Andre
> > --
> > André Oliveira da Costa
> > (costa AT cade DOT com DOT br)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> > Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -