Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:36:38 -0800 (PST)
From: "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed AT reedmedia DOT net>
To: "Gerrit P. Haase" <gp AT familiehaase DOT de>
cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cp and "are the same file"
In-Reply-To: <41C9F350.5050904@familiehaase.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0412221426060.21256-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-IsSubscribed: yes

In other thread:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:

> It is in in gcc/config/i386/cygming.h:
>
> #define TARGET_EXECUTABLE_SUFFIX ".exe"

Awesome! Thank you. This is what I was asking about.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:

> PTA, please provide a patch (tested) which adds a flag to gcc on Cygwin
> to disable the creation of the suffix.  However, you'll have to add this
> flag to your 50000 mechanisms as well, so maybe it would be easier for
> you to rebuild gcc with a completely removed suffix mechanism.

Instead of having to always use a command-line option for gcc, I could
possibly add an option or definition to
/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-cygwin/3.3.3/specs

I will have to look at this closer.

But even adding a long option like --do-not-use-target-executable-suffix
is do-able since I already have wrappers for gcc. (I just would prefer not
having to do this.)

> BTW, I still cannot see the point why you don't want to use it as is,
> what is the actual problem with the suffix?  Was it just the problem
> with cp and other tools?  Why don't try to enable the tools you need
> instead of trying to disable features in gcc?

cp, mv, strip are three tools I have had troubles with.

Why have workarounds for automated .exe extension handling if my version
of Windows doesn't need it in the first place?

As a reminder of what I am working on: I am porting the third-party
packages build system for NetBSD to cygwin. It is called Pkgsrc and
already supports Interix and several other Unixes. Last year, I ported it
to BSD/OS which was easier and I personally use it under Mac OS X,
Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD and NetBSD for installing and managing add-on
software.

Pkgsrc should be very useful to cygwin users too -- it will add an easy
way to (hopefully) install over 5000 software suites on cygwin. The Pkgsrc
team has a goal of making it be portable -- and we officially support
several Unixes.

I do want to support older Windows 9x also, but I can't test and I am not
sure what to easily do about strip, mv problems -- other than fixing them
too.

 Jeremy C. Reed

 	  	 	 BSD News, BSD tutorials, BSD links
	  	 	 http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/