X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20100609194905.GA4064@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> References: <1276042636 DOT 1651 DOT 9 DOT camel AT erebor> <20100609044034 DOT GB9305 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4C0F9535 DOT 7010902 AT redhat DOT com> <20100609154734 DOT GA18851 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20100609194905 DOT GA4064 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> From: Julio Costa Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:21:58 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 'cp' utility bug when .exe file exist. To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , 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 Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 20:49, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 05:28:16PM +0100, Julio Costa wrote: >>On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 16:47, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 03:02:16PM +0100, Julio Costa wrote: >>>>On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 14:20, Eric Blake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Have you ever encountered a makefile that doesn't consistently use >>>>> $(EXEEXT) everywhere? ??Too many people just expect 'gcc -o foo ...' = to >>>>> produce foo, then 'strip foo' to work, without realizing that on cygw= in, >>>>> gcc created 'foo.exe' and strip _has_ to have .exe magic. >>>> >>>>That's just one of the several scenarios which would greatly benefit >>>>from a removal of .exe magic. >>> >>> Uh, no. ??That would BREAK makefiles. >>> >> >>Huh? I'm getting dense. My reading was: >> >>if gcc (or cygwin with his magic) did't apply the .exe extension, then >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0{strip,cp,mv,install,etc...} wouldn't need the .exe magic >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0period. >>else >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0strip&company _do_ need the .exe magic >> =C2=A0 =C2=A0# ...and possibily because of that, some Makefiles were nee= dlessly >>modified to do his own magic >>end if >> >>So, what would break? > > Any makefile which didn't use the absolute latest version of gcc which > has this critically important change to remove .exe. > How come? I thought that that kind of things was handled by an regular autoconf, which tries to see what is the result of a gcc compilation... (the a.out test) > For the record, unless Corinna thinks it's a good idea (which I doubt): > we're not going to change Cygwin to drop all of the .exe extensions from > every single file in the distribution and I'd be violently opposed to > the notion of changing gcc's default behavior after all of these years. > Well, here you have two unbeatable arguments: 1) violence 2) after all these years That is quite enough to make your point. After all, WJM, right? I rest my case. --=20 ___________ Julio Costa -- 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