Mail Archives: djgpp/2004/02/06/02:16:16
>Are you trying to save space in your FAT?
that's one of the advantages, not the most important one IMO.
It makes searching for files easier and faster.
-------------------
>Sterten <sterten AT aol DOT com> wrote:
>
>> I usually attach my source code to the executable (type xxx.c >> xxx.exe)
>> but haven't seen thisdone by others. Why not ?
>
>Because it's a rather pointless exercise.
why ?
>Not to mention that the
>majority of serious C programs are built from quite a lot more than a
>single source file, so this technique would fail anyway.
it can't fail, since just using the -E switch is one possibility.
also ,just attaching the main source-file is still better than
attaching nothing. You can't argue, that a thing is useless just
because it can only be verified in parts.
>And then
>there's programs that use pasting of data after the end of the .exe
>file for storing *other* data (e.g. Allegro inlines .dat files).
I can't see, why this should conflict.
You can attach the sorce after or before the other data,
both should work, I's prefer the source at the end of the .exe
>> Are there disadvantages ?
>
>There are, more to the point, no advantages.
you really should name them for a discussion which makes sense.
You can't say there are *no advantages* , since some advantages
are so apparant that they can't be denied. (fewer number of files,
source can easily be found)
>> Shouldn't it be supported by the compiler and maybe even be the default ?
>
>Definitely not.
just your opinion, no arguing.
I should also mention, that I usually have a simple routine and a commandline
switch which prints the attached sourcecode of these .exes.
It's also easy to change an existing editor and compiler to
edit and re-compile such .exes
In case of recompiling, a new version-number-suffix should be created.
Guenter Stertenbrink
- Raw text -