delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp/1999/09/01/12:25:56

To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: bug in ginstall under bash ?
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 990831094953 DOT 9517N-100000 AT is>
From: Michael Bukin <M DOT A DOT Bukin AT inp DOT nsk DOT su>
Date: 01 Sep 1999 12:07:29 +0700
In-Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii's message of "Tue, 31 Aug 1999 09:50:16 +0300 (IDT)"
Message-ID: <203dwzrzhq.fsf@Sky.inp.nsk.su>
Lines: 19
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> writes:

> On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Maurice Lombardi wrote:
> 
> > Finally an other inconvenience, only when porting an unix script, is that
> > ginstall do not add automatically the suffix .exe to the executables.
> 
> I don't understand.  Are you telling that "ginstall foo /bin/foo" does
> NOT produce /bin/foo.exe?  It should; it does for me.  Please post the
> details.

AFAIK, starting from some version of binutils (2.8.1?), ld produces
stubbed COFF images by default.  Then ginstall does not add .exe
suffix, because both foo and foo.exe are stubbed already.

Default output format may depend on linker script (djgpp.djl).

-- 
Michael Bukin

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019