From:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>,
	Tim Van Holder <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:30:41 +0200
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	RE: About release of gcc-2.95.3 for DJGPP
Message-ID:	<3AB73F61.5945.6CFEED@localhost>
References:	<3AB730FE DOT 3941 DOT 34C8F0 AT localhost>
In-reply-to:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010320110513.7756D-100000@is>
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On 20 Mar 2001, at 11:07, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> 
> 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.

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

> > 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

Andris

- Raw text -