Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/11/10/03:14:33
On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Robert Hoehne wrote:
> 4) When you call
> gcc -o foo foo.o
> you will get foo, and not foo _and_ foo.exe which might be confusing
> sometimes.
I actually think this is an advantage, since you get both foo which
causes Make to be happy, and foo.exe which can be run by COMMAND.COM
and other DOS programs. If you only get foo, you can only run it from
DJGPP programs, unless you first rename it to foo.exe.
> I really don't understand, why the following command
>
> ginstall foo c:/bin
>
> produces two different files, depending on the format of
> foo. If foo is an unstubbed executable it installs it as
>
> c:/bin/foo.exe
>
> but if it is a stubified executable it installs as
>
> c:/bin/foo
ginstall does that so that Unix Makefiles which say something like
"install -c foo ${exec_prefix}/foo" will still work without having to
edit the Makefile, and will produce on DOS the desired effect of
making a program available for normal command-line use.
> In my opinion, ginstall should either install the file in a given
> directory ever with the same name as given on the commandline,
> or ever (for executables) appending the .exe suffix (if it
> doesn't have it already)
Appending .exe is an okay solution, provided that nobody will want the
stubifued executables without .exe extension to be installed.
Somebody (you?) once told me that having gcc instead of gcc.exe helps
to run configure scripts because they look for programs with "test -f".
If somebody uses this trick, and doesn't need to run those programs
from COMMAND.COM, changing ginstall to append .exe will break their
setup, and I hate breaking setup of others.
- Raw text -