Delivered-To: listarch-cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Message-Id: <199902060902.BAA00447@aleph.ssd.hal.com> Subject: Re: make and .exe targets To: Ssiddiqi AT InspirePharm DOT Com (Suhaib M. Siddiqi) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 01:02:49 -0800 (PST) Cc: jjf AT bcs DOT org DOT uk, cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com In-Reply-To: <01bb01be515b$dcf52640$29acdfd0@InspirePharm.Com> from "Suhaib M. Siddiqi" at Feb 5, 99 06:04:19 pm From: "J. J. Farrell" X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text > Message-ID: <01bb01be515b$dcf52640$29acdfd0 AT InspirePharm DOT Com> > From: "Suhaib M. Siddiqi" > Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 18:04:19 -0500 I don't think this conversation is on-topic for the mailing list, which is why I sent my last message to you privately. It is generally considered rude to send private messages to a public forum without permission, though I have no objection in this case if you think the list will be interested. I'm replying publicly now to correct a couple of false statements you made about me. If you wish to pursue this further, I suggest we do so privately. > First of all, you picked $PATH from one message. > There were several messages I sent directly to him. > PATH was the very first suggestion. I did not 'pick $PATH from one message'. I read the thread as it had arrived in my mailbox, and replied to the most recent message that I had seen at the time. PATH may have been your very first suggestion, but it was obviously still current since you instructed John to Read my previous message on how to define $PATH. > I do know what AIX is and how it > differs from > other UNIX flavors. I am very well aware of it. In that case, since John had already said he had used make under AIX, why did you say Cygwin is a UNIX like environment. Therefore, to use it effectively you should have some knowledge of UNIX. and Cygwin follows UNIX rules not AIX. You can download a source code for SUN, SGI or LINUX, look carefully on the Makefile and you will know how to write a Makefile for a UNIX system. That makefile will work under Cygwin too. > Beside you language has been absolutely nonsense. Please explain what was nonsense about my language. > If you donot know the > whole story > then you do not jump and start braging about something. I am sorry if you thought I was bragging; that was not my intention. I don't understand why you thought I was - could you explain, please. > As I said $PATH was the verey first suggestion. I also wrote to him > about > configuration problems. > It is hard to say anything unless one sees the system. This is sometimes true, though with an informative bug report such as in this case it is usually possible to at least remove some of the possibilities. John included his very simple and straightforward makefile, and a clear explanation that when ld.exe was invoked via gcc from the command line it worked, but when it was invoked via gcc from make it failed to open its output file. From this we can easily draw a couple of conclusions: 1) the problem is almost certainly nothing to do with the makefile. Since make has successfully invoked gcc with a command line that was valid enough for it to invoke ld with a command valid enough for it to try to open its output file, the makefile must be basically OK. The only reasonably possible flaw with the makefile is that it may have generated an invalid filename for the ld output; but the filename in the error message looks fine, and the makefile is very simple and does no tricky filename manipulation. 2) the problem is almost certainly nothing to do with $PATH. When built directly from the command line, it works. This means that the PATH value at the command line is OK. This same value of PATH is in use when make is invoked, and make gets as far as successfully invoking ld.exe, so PATH appears to be OK within make. The problem is that ld.exe can't open its output file, and that has nothing to do with the setting of PATH. > Using his makefile and source I could compile it. That's what I wrote > to him in one of the email. On the list you said you couldn't get the makefile to work; this was due to a problem you introduced when you copied it. > Yes, you said unfortunately you do not know why make is not working. I did not say that - I would hardly have done so since the evidence suggested that make was working fine. What I said was "I've no idea why, unfortunately" in reference to ld being unable to open its output file. > My answer is still in computing world there is nothing like > "unfortunate." > Something does not work because of mistake. That means "there is no > unfortunate > configuration" This is an unfortunate misunderstanding. The sentence meant "I do not know the cause of the problem, and it is unfortunate that I do not know it; if I were fortunate enough to know the answer, I would be able to help by giving it". I'm sorry if my language was not adequately clear. > Beside, you just picked couple of mails from mail archive and talked > absolutely irrelevant. I did not consult any mail archives or pick a couple of mails; I simply replied to the most recent message I had seen in the thread. I do not think my comments were irrelevant. I made them in the hope of avoiding any more time and effort being wasted pursuing things which were almost certainly irrelevant to the problem. If John had taken your advice, he would have been wasting his time on a number of things: - studying UNIX - studying whatever you had sent to him previously about $PATH - checking his $PATH configuration - downloading various UNIX source codes - studying the makefiles in those sources This would have been pointless when it was clear that he knew UNIX at least well enough to write a correct simple makefile, and that the problem was incredibly unlikely to be anything to do with either $PATH or the makefile. > To answer your question about AIX, I did not ask any question about AIX. > I have 3 AIX, 4 SGI origin and one > SUN right in my office. > I am also the System Information in-charge for my company. I do believe > I know the differences in different UNIX flavors. Then why did you tell someone who had used make on AIX that he needed to have "some knowledge of UNIX", that "Cygwin follows UNIX rules not AIX" and that he needed to learn "how to write a Makefile for a UNIX system"? Regards, jjf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com