X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4A7F3AAD.2070105@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:07:57 -0500
From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090715 Thunderbird/3.0b3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cc/c89/c99 as aliases for gcc [was Re: gcc4: cc]
References: <49C0467A DOT 1080404 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <49C07906 DOT 2060504 AT gmail DOT com> <49C07E09 DOT 5070909 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <4A7F2F68 DOT 3090307 AT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <4A7F2F68.3090307@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
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

On 09/08/2009 15:19, Dave Korn wrote:
>    This makes me think that I should not ship anything by those names that is
> merely an alias for gcc.  It would help broken packages that assume the
> existence of cc, but break any that assume the semantics of cc.  I'm not sure
> which of those two is best.

IIRC packages (usually just hand-written Makefiles) using 'cc' (or 
$(CC), which make(1) defaults to 'cc') are just using it to mean a 
generic C compiler.  I really don't think they care about SUSv2.  OTOH, 
not having a 'cc' at all would make things really difficult.

>    It's possible that there might be a command-line switch to implement this
> behaviour in 4.5.0, in which case the problem will be moot and I can ship simple
> wrapper scripts that pass through the command-line options adding the new switch
> as they go, but I'm inclined to /not/ include simple alternatives-based aliases.

Makes sense wrt c89/c99.


Yaakov

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