Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/12/22/17:21:19
Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>
>
>>>The suffix is required on Win9x, AFAIK, so this is not a viable route.
>>
>>That said, I believe the OP didn't request that gcc not produce .exe files
>>by default, only how can *he* make gcc not produce the .exe suffix. What
>>you have to do is add a "." after the output (-o) filename[*]. Some
>>projects define EXEEXT (or EXESUFFIX), so setting that to "." in yours
>>could be all you need.
>
>
> Sorry that will not work for me. I am working with over 5000 build
> mechanisms. I don't want to setup wrappers and other patches to add a
> period hack after the output filename.
>
> Jeremy C. Reed
PTA, please provide a patch (tested) which adds a flag to gcc on Cygwin
to disable the creation of the suffix. However, you'll have to add this
flag to your 50000 mechanisms as well, so maybe it would be easier for
you to rebuild gcc with a completely removed suffix mechanism.
BTW, I still cannot see the point why you don't want to use it as is,
what is the actual problem with the suffix? Was it just the problem
with cp and other tools? Why don't try to enable the tools you need
instead of trying to disable features in gcc?
Gerrit
--
=^..^=
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -