From: ld AT netrix DOT com (Long Doan)
Subject: Re: Default linker output filename
6 Nov 1996 06:55:34 -0800
Sender: daemon AT cygnus DOT com
Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <3280A26D.3262.cygnus.gnu-win32@netrix.com>
References: <Pine DOT 3 DOT 07 DOT 9611051454 DOT B13015-a100000 AT sumimasen DOT gen DOT co DOT jp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; SunOS 5.4 sun4m)
Original-To: Chin Chee-Kai <cheekai AT gen DOT co DOT jp>
Original-Cc: Geoffrey Noer <noer AT cygnus DOT com>, gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com

I think it would be better if a.out is a link instead of a.out.exe,
since Windows won't be able to execute a link. On the other hand, why
don't we just use bash (or some other shells) and be happy with a.out?

Long.

Chin Chee-Kai wrote:
> 
> IMHO, if it doesn't sound too far-fetched, perhaps creating
> the default output with filename "a.out" and then create
> a link file "a.out.exe-->a.out" will preserve most semantics
> that prep-scripts expect, and will allow human to just type
> the following :
>                 gcc test.c
>                 a.out
> as expected on Unix.
> 
> Chin Chee-Kai (Last, First)
> Internet Email-ID:      cheekai AT gen DOT co DOT jp
> Gen Tech Corporation
> 
> > 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).
> 
> -
> For help on using this list, send a message to
> "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".