Date:	Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:07:06 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
cc:	Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	RE: About release of gcc-2.95.3 for DJGPP
In-Reply-To:	<3AB730FE.3941.34C8F0@localhost>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010320110513.7756D-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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

On Tue, 20 Mar 2001 pavenis AT lanet DOT lv wrote:
> 1) leave things as they are. So one need LFN to use gcov.exe
> 
> 2) apply my patch (only using basename(gcov_file_name) instead of
> gcov_file_name as start value when looking for 1st dot and know 
> that somebody may run into trouble on non LFN system with veird       
> extensions. I think one can find many other situation when he can 
> destroy existing files.

I think 2) is okay, provided that we document how these names are 
produced, so that users could figure out what files will be overwritten.

> Tested: I'm getting foo.da, foo.bb and foo.bbg. So also here the 
> conflicts are possible (foo.c and foo.h ==> foo.da, foo.bb, ...)

What happens on Unix?  Do they get foo.c.da and foo.h.da instead?  If so, 
we could use the same strategy as with .gcov here.

- Raw text -