Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/03/12/10:49:57
On 12.03.2010 16:16, Eric Blake wrote:
>> ...
>>
> This is an area of active conversation; if you would like, you can test
> the latest snapshot and the experimental coreutils 8.4-1 to see if the
> behavior is more intuitive (that is, there are more situations where
> .exe is preserved across file moves or copies, and fewer places where
> .exe is appended on a whim if the source didn't have one).
>
> In general, cygwin does not care if the .exe is missing, but other
> programs (particularly cmd) do, so it is better if PE-COFF files are
> given the .exe extension. But implementing it is tricky - for example,
> in the case of 'cat a> b', there is no way to tell at the time when b
> is created whether it will be populated with PE-COFF contents (that is,
> no way to tell whether the source was a literal 'a' or 'a.exe'), so you
> will not get an .exe in that case.
>
I'm just pondering the bold idea (probably to be discarded) that it
*could* be detected by "magic number" checking, i.e. renaming a new file
on-the-fly after a few bytes of PE-COFF have been written to its
beginning... 8-)
------
Thomas
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -