Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Message-ID: <387D5564.789AB78E@ctam.com.au> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 15:32:36 +1100 From: Brendan J Simon Reply-To: Brendan DOT Simon AT ctam DOT com DOT au Organization: CTAM Pty Ltd, Australia. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.36 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Mingw32 discussion list at eGroups , cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: [RFC] changing gcc default output executable name (a.exe now) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mumit Khan 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 .exe, where 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?? Yep. I agree entirely. An output of or even .exe would be justified on Unix boxes also in my opinion. I don't know why Unix people still insist on making things harder and more cryptic then they have to be. I think it's an ego powertrip thing or something. Brendan Simon. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com