Subject: Re: Default linker output filename
From: [email-masked] (Murray Todd Williams)

1 Nov 1996 14:10:34 -0800
Sender: [email-masked]
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.0 i586)
Original-To: [email-masked]
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

> > We are thinking about changing the default linker output filename from
> > a.out to aout.exe.  Can anyone think of any bad consequences that might
> > result?
> 
> Why not go all the way towards DOS behavior and create FOO.EXE when you do
> "gcc foo.c"?
> 
> --
> Weiqi Gao
> [email-masked]

I would think the reason should be that GNU's GCC compiler/platform is
not meant to be DOS or act as DOS, but rather to act as UNIX. 
Personally, it seems to me that there is not all that much effort
expended in typing "RENAME a.out foo.exe" or even better, placing a "-o"
option in the GCC command.

I would be extremely hesitant about changing the default behavior in
case someone generates a Makefile that for some crazy reason counts on
an a.out file.  (Stupid as that would be.)  If the default behavior were
indeed changed, I would suggest a compiler option that defaulted to the
old a.out behavior, thus making it possible to include another parameter
in the Makefile and keep the behavior the same.

On the other hand (yeah, I'm having a hard time making up my mind) if
someone wrote a complex Makefile which involved compiling and then
running a program, the Unix defaults would never work because the
Makefile would tend to generate a program "foo" instead of "foo.exe"
which NT/95 would never run.  This behavior might be of much greater
concern then a.out vs aout.exe.

Murray Todd Williams
Colorado State University
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".