Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 09:52:41 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Where does gcc -o foo make foo.exe
In-Reply-To: <200101131757.MAA01076@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010114094159.24890P-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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, 13 Jan 2001, 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?

Even if Autoconf is fixed, what do we do about all the Makefile's out 
there which have "foo", not "foo$EXE_EXT" as their targets?

We could make ld.exe create an empty `foo', but I suspect that at least 
some Makefile's will actually try to run `foo' (I remember seeing 
"GO32-V2" in the DOS box's caption bar when some packages build).

So I'm afraid getting rid of producing the extensionless program will 
break too many packages that have integrated DJGPP support.  Someone(tm)
will have to fix all those as well.