Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 00:27:30 -0500
From: Brent Williams <Brent DOT Williams AT wcom DOT com>
Subject: Re: [mingw32] [RFC] changing gcc default output executable name (a.exe
 now)
In-reply-to: <Pine.HPP.3.96.1000112230321.6294H-100000@hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu>
To: mingw32 AT egroups DOT com
Cc: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-id: <387D6242F0.DCAABRENT.WILLIAMS@send.mcit.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Becky! ver 1.25.07
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
References: <Pine DOT HPP DOT 3 DOT 96 DOT 1000112230321 DOT 6294H-100000 AT hp2 DOT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu>

I think (a.exe) is expected to those who have experience with gcc and
are trying it out on windows. At least that's how it was for me. 

gcc (imho) is rarely used outside of a makefile, except for testing
purposes.

Also, how will it handle and existing *.exe file of the same name? Given
your example, will it write over any existing foo1.exe file? I once  worked
on an email program once, and I had a few programs I wrote just for
developing the mail program. They would make and undo changes to the
mailbox file to allow me to test and retest ways my mail program handled
it. I wouldn't want to have a foo.exe file overwritten accidentally due
to an oversight on my part. (i.e. forgetting the -o <name> during a
manual compile)

I don't know whether I would be for or against this proposed changed. I
probably wouldn't notice, as I consider it unthinkable to attempt to produce
an executable without the '-o' flag.

In summary, I don't think many people would notice one way or another,
but I think there may be a (very small) problem with overwriting
existing files.

I think I've confused myself now, so I'll just shut-up. :-)

Brent

On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:07:40 -0600 (CST)
Mumit Khan <khan AT NanoTech DOT Wisc DOT EDU> wrote:


Are people happy/ok with the fact that gcc on win32 produces a program
called a.exe by default? For example,
  
  $ gcc foo.c

will create a.exe. This is of course not really expected on DOS/Windows
world, and causes all sorts of confusion. Also, this is simply lame even
on Unix, and this historical bit should've disappeared long ago, but
won't since it's a convention now.

I'd like to move to creating <name>.exe, where <name> is the first file
on the list you provided to gcc.
  
  $ gcc foo1.c foo2.c foo3.c

will produce foo1.exe, not a.exe as it does now.

Is this something we should change?? 

Regards,
Mumit



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toys, Books, Software. Save $10 on any order of $25 or more at

SmarterKids.com. Hurry, offer expires 1/15/00.
http://click.egroups.com/1/646/5/_/13107/_/947740080/

-- Easily schedule meetings and events using the group calendar!
-- http://www.egroups.com/cal?listname=mingw32&m=1



-------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.
Brent Williams / GDNO 1-800-281-8396 ext 7390
PGP Key -- http://www.palenaka.com/pgp/palenaka.asc


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com