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: <20000113203131.29351.qmail@web116.yahoomail.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:31:31 -0800 (PST) From: Earnie Boyd Reply-To: earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com Subject: Re: [mingw32] Re: [RFC] changing gcc default output executable name (a.exe now) To: Matthew Brown , cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Matthew, Your process would still work if gcc didn't append the .exe to the executable name. You would just do gcc -o myprog$(EXEEXT) instead of gcc -o myprog. Earnie. --- Matthew Brown wrote: > The process I (and others that I am familiar with) use is to define macros > for common file extensions such as: EXEEXT, OBJEXT, and LIBEXT. You can > conditionally define these in the makefile (or in a makefile that is included > everywhere) to be the proper values for the target platform. > > Example using gmake syntax: > ifeq ($(TARGET_OS), win32) > EXEEXT=.exe > OBJEXT=.obj > LIBEXT=.lib > else > ifeq ($(TARGET_OS), cygwin) > EXEEXT=.exe > OBJEXT=.o > LIBEXT=.a > else > EXEEXT= > OBJEXT=.o > LIBEXT=.a > endif > endif > > Then when you define your targets: > foo$(EXEEXT) : > > -- Matthew Brown > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Andre Oliveira da Costa" > To: > Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 1:44 PM > Subject: RE: [mingw32] Re: [RFC] changing gcc default output executable name > (a.exe now) > > > > I'd like to ask for comments on another issue related to portability from > > UNIX --> cygwin, compilation etc.: the way it is now, the linker > > automagically appends a .exe suffix to the executable filename. If you do > > > > gcc -o foo foo.o > > > > ld will create foo.exe . I wouldn't complain about it except for the fact > > that this imposes a serious restriction to portability. For example, > usually > > when I try to install a just-compiled application through "make install", > > all the cp, mv, chmod, strip and install rules refer to "foo" and not > > "foo.exe", and therefore they (rightfully) complain about missing files. > So, > > even if the compilation goes out well, there's always some makefile > > tweaking involved. > > > > I don't think tweaking all these applications to look for "foo.exe" if they > > can't find "foo" would be the right thing. But I would really like to be > > able to install the applications I compile without having to tweak all the > > makefiles. Maybe the solution would be not to add the .exe suffix... > > > > Am I missing something or is this a real problem? > > > > Andre > > -- > > André Oliveira da Costa > > (costa AT cade DOT com DOT br) > > > > > > -- > > Want to unsubscribe from this list? > > Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com > > > > > > > -- > Want to unsubscribe from this list? > Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com