Message-ID: <20010113195302.594.qmail@lauras.lt>
From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 21:53:02 +0200
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Where does gcc -o foo make foo.exe
Mail-Followup-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References: <20010112223359 DOT 497 DOT qmail AT lauras DOT lt> <20010113131222 DOT 221 DOT qmail AT lauras DOT lt> <200101131757 DOT MAA01076 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i
In-Reply-To: <200101131757.MAA01076@envy.delorie.com>; from dj@delorie.com on Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 12:57:43PM -0500
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jan 13, 2001 at 12:57:43PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote:
> > I've incorrectly described the problem. The real
> > problem is that if one says 'gcc foo.c -o foo', then
> > only foo.exe is made, and no foo. This breaks autoconf
> > etc and needs fixing.
> 
> But saves disk space.  How hard would it be to fix autoconf?
 
I don't know for sure, but AFAIK Autoconf WIP version is already
fixed. It uses improved version of AC_EXEEXT by default. But we
have to wait for its release before we can dump that feature.

Also I vaguely recall problems with Automake.

Laurynas