Subject: Re: gcc produces foo.exe, not foo
From: [email-masked] (Arne Glenstrup)

24 Sep 1998 16:11:46 -0700
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
References: <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: Arne Glenstrup <[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
To: [email-masked]

Now that we have established that we need some (in my opinion) dirty
$(EXEEXT)-stuff, what is the consensus on how to use it with regards to
makefile targets and -o switches to compilers? Should a makefile look
like this:

  EXEEXT = @EXEEXT@

  goal$(EXEEXT): goal.c
                 $(CC) -o goal$(EXEEXT) goal.c
                 cp goal$(EXEEXT) anothergoal$(EXEEXT)
                 mv goal$(EXEEXT) yet.another.goal

or should it look like this:

  EXEEXT = @EXEEXT@

  goal:          goal.c
                 $(CC) -o goal goal.c
                 cp goal$(EXEEXT) anothergoal$(EXEEXT)
                 mv goal$(EXEEXT) yet.another.goal

-- Arne
__________________________________________________________________________
Arne John Glenstrup        | Windows 95: n.  32 bit extensions and a       
[email-masked]              |  graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8   
http://www.diku.dk/~panic/ |  bit operating system originally coded for a 4
                              bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company
                              that can't stand 1 bit of competition.

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