Subject: Re: Default linker output filename
From: [email-masked] (Heinz Hemken)

7 Nov 1996 08:23:24 -0800
Sender: [email-masked]
Approved: [email-masked]
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (WinNT; I)
Original-To: [email-masked]
Original-Sender: [email-masked]

Patrick Doyle wrote:
> That works fine for simple cases.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of
> makefiles and configure scripts for existing software that have:
>    gcc -o blabla blabla.c foo.c bar.c
> which makes porting these packages to W95 difficult.  Not difficult
> in the sense of "how do I make this work", just difficult in the sense
> of "I have to repeatedly make this change in _every_ program I port to
> W95... gee it would be nice if some combination of gnu-win32/ld/gcc
> would do this for me".

Yet another little pointless omission by MS. These days, there doesn't
seem to be much of a point to insist that executables have .exe, .com or
..bat extensions. Short of modifying every makefile you receive, a pain
at best, it would have been better to be able to check the UNIXoid file
properties, which don't really exist in W95, though bash does some sort
of simulation. Find the latest file with "executable" turned on and give
it an .exe extension.

However, if the system were able to mark something as executable, there
wouldn't be any point in changing the extension to .exe. Worse, I think
(?) the same is true for NT, an ostensibly *real* OS.

I think what you want is some kind of -exe flag that tacks on the
extension to every executable that gets generated. A kludge, but what
the hell.

-- 
Heinz Hemken
http://www.cell.cinvestav.mx/hh/bchh.html
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".