From:	"Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	RE: Where does gcc -o foo make foo.exe
Date:	Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:30:55 +0100
Message-ID:	<NEBBIOJNGMKPNOBKHCGHOEIICAAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
In-reply-to:	<20010112223359.497.qmail@lauras.lt>
Importance:	Normal
X-MIME-Autoconverted:	from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id TAA25757
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Sorry if this is a FAQ, but can anybody tell
> where exactly in DJGPP toolchain was added support
> for making foo.exe if only '-o foo' is given for GCC?
> Is it specs, compiler driver, or somewhere else?
> 
> The reason I'm asking - I've installed GCC 2.97 as
> a default compiler to see what breaks. And it makes
> only unstubbed images, if just -o foo is given. I want
> to fix it.
IIRC, ld uses coff-go32-exe as default, causing the output
file 'foo' to be an exe in disguise. If gcc -o foo produces
a bare coff file, you're probably not using the latest ld.

The djgpp specs file adds a call to stubify to link_command,
causing gcc -o foo to generate a foo.exe as well ("stubify
foo" gives foo.exe, as does stubify foo.exe).

- Raw text -