From: "Ben Davis" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Reverse-compiler Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 22:26:30 +0100 Organization: Customer of Planet Online Lines: 28 Message-ID: <8cb2cm$t25$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk> References: <8c3eae$j1l$1 AT news6 DOT svr DOT pol DOT co DOT uk> <8c457a$162$1 AT news7 DOT svr DOT pol DOT co DOT uk> <8caj5q$ii3$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE> NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-226.vanadium.dialup.pol.co.uk X-Trace: news6.svr.pol.co.uk 954797270 29765 62.136.22.226 (3 Apr 2000 21:27:50 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Apr 2000 21:27:50 GMT X-Complaints-To: abuse AT theplanet DOT net X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote in message <8caj5q$ii3$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE>... >> In the future, I will keep backups before I start invoking GCC >> manually; > >I doubt that. Really. Forgetting to keep backups is even more like to >happen accidentally than mistyping a gcc command line that badly. I don't think I'll forget after that. Excuse me, but I normally rely on RHIDE to do my compiling for me. It's not my fault if I get the filenames in the wrong order and it starts writing the executable into the source file (I presume that's what happened, but I don't know). I've rewritten the source, and kept a backup, and written a batch file (I can't be bothered to read the MAKE documentation) which creates the header as necessary and then compiles the program. I seem to have got it right this time. >> but I should point out to anyone concerned that GCC should >> *not* have deleted a source file. > >Well --- you asked it to. Unix-borne tools like gcc are in the habit >of doing exactly what you say, wherever possible. If you 'rm -rf /' on >a Unix box as root, that's what it'll do. Yes, but GCC is a compiler, not a deltree-equivalent! Ben Davis