Subject: Re: Default linker output filename
From: [email-masked] (Wade Richards)

2 Nov 1996 16:11:41 -0800
Sender: [email-masked]
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: [email-masked]
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32)
Original-To: Geoffrey Noer <[email-masked]>
Original-Cc: [email-masked]
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

At 15:17 30/10/96 -0800, you wrote:
}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?
}
}(My gut feeling is that a.out.exe might be problematic so I lean towards
}aout.exe).

I would suggest a.out.exe.  In my opinion, the only reason to leave it
anything like the UNIX standard, a.out, is for compatability.  In this case,
close is not close enough.  If some program (say, a "configure" script)
compilies code and expects to run "a.out", it won't find "aout.exe", no
matter how close you think the name is.  On the other hand, if there is a
file called "a.out.exe", and your script executes "a.out", it will work.

All of the win32 platforms support long file names.  If you can run the
cygnus tools at all, then you can correctly produce a file named
"a.out.exe", and you can run it by typing "a.out".

As an aside, some people (the NT users) may be wondering why to change it at
all.  If you have an executable called "a.out", then NT will be able to run
it, but Win95 won't.  Both NT and Win95 won't be able to find it on the
cmd.exe (or command.com) search path, since they only look for files with
..bat, .com, .exe, or .cmd extensions.

        --- Wade
----------
Wade Richards    -= [email-masked] =- 
"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."

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