Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/06/09/12:28:57
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 16:47, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 03:02:16PM +0100, Julio Costa wrote:
>>On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 14:20, Eric Blake wrote:
>>>
>>> Have you ever encountered a makefile that doesn't consistently use
>>> $(EXEEXT) everywhere? ??Too many people just expect 'gcc -o foo ...' to
>>> produce foo, then 'strip foo' to work, without realizing that on cygwin,
>>> gcc created 'foo.exe' and strip _has_ to have .exe magic.
>>
>>That's just one of the several scenarios which would greatly benefit
>>from a removal of .exe magic.
>
> Uh, no. =C2=A0That would BREAK makefiles.
>
Huh? I'm getting dense. My reading was:
if gcc (or cygwin with his magic) did't apply the .exe extension, then
{strip,cp,mv,install,etc...} wouldn't need the .exe magic
period.
else
strip&company _do_ need the .exe magic
# ...and possibily because of that, some Makefiles were needlessly
modified to do his own magic
end if
So, what would break?
--=20
___________
Julio Costa
--
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 -