Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 10:11:21 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Robert Hoehne cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: DJGPP 2.02 Beta 981027 In-Reply-To: <36474D55.F1AF4C29@gmx.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Robert Hoehne wrote: > 4) When you call > gcc -o foo foo.o > you will get foo, and not foo _and_ foo.exe which might be confusing > sometimes. I actually think this is an advantage, since you get both foo which causes Make to be happy, and foo.exe which can be run by COMMAND.COM and other DOS programs. If you only get foo, you can only run it from DJGPP programs, unless you first rename it to foo.exe. > I really don't understand, why the following command > > ginstall foo c:/bin > > produces two different files, depending on the format of > foo. If foo is an unstubbed executable it installs it as > > c:/bin/foo.exe > > but if it is a stubified executable it installs as > > c:/bin/foo ginstall does that so that Unix Makefiles which say something like "install -c foo ${exec_prefix}/foo" will still work without having to edit the Makefile, and will produce on DOS the desired effect of making a program available for normal command-line use. > In my opinion, ginstall should either install the file in a given > directory ever with the same name as given on the commandline, > or ever (for executables) appending the .exe suffix (if it > doesn't have it already) Appending .exe is an okay solution, provided that nobody will want the stubifued executables without .exe extension to be installed. Somebody (you?) once told me that having gcc instead of gcc.exe helps to run configure scripts because they look for programs with "test -f". If somebody uses this trick, and doesn't need to run those programs from COMMAND.COM, changing ginstall to append .exe will break their setup, and I hate breaking setup of others.