From: Jerzy Witkowski <Jerzy DOT Witkowski AT ii DOT uni DOT wroc DOT pl>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: Compiling in 2.8.1 vs. 2.7.2.1 - two minor problems
Date: 02 Jun 1998 09:20:56 +0200
Organization: University of Wroclaw
Lines: 28
Sender: jwi AT swiatowit
Message-ID: <x667ik46cn.fsf@ii.uni.wroc.pl>
References: <19980529235344 DOT AAC16281 AT ppp116 DOT cartsys DOT com>
	<6kulka$8kk$1 AT rosenews DOT rose DOT hp DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: swiatowit.ii.uni.wroc.pl
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

"Andrew Crabtree" <andrewc AT rosemail DOT rose DOT hp DOT com> writes:
[...]
> Robert was short on disc space, so he changed binutils 2.8 to
> ouput a stubified image directly.  That way you could change the compiler
> specs to not call stubify.  You could just do 'gcc a.c -o a.exe' and have
> the linker emit the stubbed coff directly.   If you have unix style
> makefiles you would still want to output both file names so make was not
> fooled into rebuilding constantly.

It seems there are two problems: low disk space and UNIX-style
makefiles (you need `a.exe' file to run program in DOS and you
need `a' file for `make' to work properly).  `a' file is created
first, so it can't be omitted.  Maybe there should be a way to
create only tiny `a.exe' - kind of symbolic link to `a' file.
Then you can have both files without wasting your disk space.

I have tried to do this with commands `stubify -g a.exe' and
`stubedit a.exe runfile=a', but resulting `a.exe' automatically
adds `.exe' suffix to run file name.  Is any simple way to solve
this problem?

-- 
Jerzy Witkowski     <Jerzy DOT Witkowski AT ii DOT uni DOT wroc DOT pl>          o       o

University of Wroclaw, Institute of Computer Science         /| |   |/|
Przesmyckiego 20, PL-51151 Wroclaw                            |/|   | |
room: 11, phone: 0048 71 3247360                             /| |/^\| |
phone/fax office secretary: 0048 71 3251271                <__|