X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-id:	<4FFC56CF.8090202@cygwin.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Jul 2012 12:22:39 -0400
From:	"Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-to:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Inconsistence on file operation when the name already exists with exe extension
References:	<BLU0-SMTP193F74A0A7FC396B8160663CED30 AT phx DOT gbl> <20120709154456 DOT GA6696 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <BLU0-SMTP224D901B80815ECFB99E3BCED30 AT phx DOT gbl> <1BBEF94B6B46E54980290D150A6F2EDD20C950F5 AT SN2PRD0610MB396 DOT namprd06 DOT prod DOT outlook DOT com> <BLU0-SMTP97B6AD85F5813BE73A584ACED20 AT phx DOT gbl> <CA+sc5mmri4CSe19uaGig_uwzWruOVzpDmm-xDuYsUapph_Ji4w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-reply-to:	<CA+sc5mmri4CSe19uaGig_uwzWruOVzpDmm-xDuYsUapph_Ji4w@mail.gmail.com>
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 7/10/2012 11:24 AM, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 4:34 AM, Aaron Schneider wrote:
>> You're right that cygwin shell tries to emulate bash, I just twisted things.
>>
>
> You're still wrong.  Cygwin is a POSIX library for Windows.  Bash is a
> shell capable of being built with that POSIX library for use on
> Windows but it isn't an emulation of Bash, it *is* Bash.  Other shells
> available on *nix is also available for Cygwin.
>
>> The problem is that in unix executables don't have extension but they
>> actually do in cygwin so I think that's the root of the problem.
>
>
> They don't need one in Cygwin either; as a matter of fact it was an
> addition to binutils in the second generation of Cygwin that added the
> .exe to the executable because it was more natural for Windows and
> Windows at the time wouldn't execute the binary without the .exe
> extension.
>
>> Probably compiling binaries under cygwin without the exe extension,
>> like  unix, is not an alternative, or is it? Cygwin may detect if it is executable
>> checking if it's PE format; if it is perl script. Just check if file is
>> present in path or run. /file
>
> False.  It is wholly possible, you just have to pass the correct flags
> to the linker process.  Current windows versions since at least XP and
> maybe before would run files that did not contain a .exe extension.

All true.  And all discussed before, as Chris pointed out earlier.
Earnie and others are being very helpful to the OP by reviewing this
stuff again.

It's great to ask questions and explore boundaries but what's better
is to explore new boundaries and ask new questions.  I'd also encourage
that those interested in this area (and I am certainly one) review what's
been said on this subject so far so that any further discussions will be
engaging for all.

-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
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 -