Mail Archives: djgpp/2001/01/31/10:32:18
Rudolf Polzer <rpolzer AT web DOT de> wrote:
> Why is 2>&1 not implemented in command.com?
It just isn't. That's about all about it anyone outside Redmond, WA,
US of A, will ever know.
> cmd.exe of WinNT can do it.
Every remotely decent shell can do it. Which only serves to prove the
point that command.com isn't a decent shell. So, what else is new?
> Or why doesnt gcc print error messages to STDOUT on WinDOZe when a
> switch like -stdout is passed?
Because such a switch doesn't exist. It can't be made the default
behaviour of gcc to write error messages to stdout instead of
stderr. Not before all existing program that use a call like 'gcc -E
input > output' to C-Preprocess a file have vanished from existence.
You definitely don't want error messages redirected to file 'output',
in that case.
Anyhow: stderr is *there* for exactly the purpose of having a channel
to output error messages. Outputting error messages to stdout would be
a design violation, sort of. It's really command.com that is at fault
here, not GCC.
> Since gcc does not stop at the first error message, you cannot find
> the error without the pause key or an IDE!
You only need a decent command line shell, or a little tool like
redir. Given the fact that redir.exe or a similar feature has been
coming with DJGPP for longer than most of the current users may be
able to remember, I fail to see any big problem, here.
--
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
- Raw text -