Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/06/09/15:49:17
On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 05:28:16PM +0100, Julio Costa wrote:
>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. ??That 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?
Any makefile which didn't use the absolute latest version of gcc which
has this critically important change to remove .exe.
For the record, unless Corinna thinks it's a good idea (which I doubt):
we're not going to change Cygwin to drop all of the .exe extensions from
every single file in the distribution and I'd be violently opposed to
the notion of changing gcc's default behavior after all of these years.
cgf
--
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 -