Date:	Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:37:38 +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:	<3AB73F61.5945.6CFEED@localhost>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010320113539.7756W-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:

> > 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.
> 
> Well added note to readme.DJGPP in gcc2953s2.zip together with 
> updated patch for gcov.c, so it will be in next build ...

Thanks!

> > > 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.
> 
> Tested on Linux. 
> 
> -rwxr-xr-x   1 andris   users       38772 Mar 20 09:17 hello*
> -rw-r--r--   1 andris   users         108 Mar 20 09:17 hello.bb
> -rw-r--r--   1 andris   users         136 Mar 20 09:17 hello.bbg
> -rw-r--r--   1 andris   users          78 Mar 20 09:17 hello.cc
> -rw-r--r--   1 andris   users         120 Mar 20 09:29 hello.cc.gcov
> -rw-r--r--   1 andris   users          40 Mar 20 09:17 hello.da

Thanks.  However, there's no hello.h here with some code in it, so it 
doesn't tell what happens in the situation which Tim mentioned (although 
hello.bbg etc. lacking the .cc part seems to hint what will happen).  Am 
I missing something?

- Raw text -