From:	bpaddock AT csonline DOT net (Bob Paddock)
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Can't Get GCC 2.8.0 to build?
Date:	Tue, 24 Mar 1998 08:17:00 -0500
Organization:	is mostly via piles
Reply-To:	bpaddock AT csonline DOT net
Message-ID:	<MJ7F1UQy8spX092yn@csonline.net>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980324131259 DOT 21946G-100000 AT is>
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.980324131259.21946G-100000@is>
Lines:	48

>> I still think I'm missing some thing as I don't see any
>> thing that fixes the files names to end with .exe in the
>> "install" section of the makefile nor any other scripts that
>> would fix them.
>
>This one, I don't understand.  Doesn't the Makefile cause GCC to be
>invoked like this (for example, for cc1):
>
>	gcc -o cc1 ....

cc1: $(P) $(C_OBJS) $(OBJS) $(BC_OBJS) $(LIBDEPS)
       $(CC) $(ALL_CFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@ $(C_OBJS) $(OBJS) $(BC_OBJS) $(LIBS)

Don't think that is what you where really asking tho?

>If the above is true, DJGPP's port of GCC is set to generate *both*
>cc1 and cc1.exe.  The former makes Make happy (since the target of the
>rule gets created), while the latter makes DOS (and you) happy.

makefile has "exeext =" (None), but gcc.c says:

#if !defined(__DJGPP__)
        /* Do not convert the output filename on DJGPP, since it
           will break many makefiles, which assume, that gcc produces
           exactly the file, which was given as output file. And since
           GNU make for DJGPP (which is the only make used) can run
           also the programs without the .exe suffix this not a problem)
	*/

Therefor I get what the makefiles says it will give me,
executable with no extensions.

Which is why I expected "install" or some thing to produce .exe
versions at some point.

>The only way I can explain this failure is that the GCC build
>procedure overrides the specs file with a different copy, possibly one
>which comes with the GCC distribution.  The magic which causes both
>cc1 and cc1.exe be generated is implemented in the %DJDIR%/lib/specs
>file, and if an incompatible specs file is used, it could disable this
>feature.

I just get outputs with no extensions, which is what all the
documentation I've seen so far says I will get.

I don't know what a "specs file" is, but I have the felling
I'm about to find out... :-)

- Raw text -