X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f Lines: 58 X-Admin: news AT aol DOT com From: sterten AT aol DOT com (Sterten) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Date: 06 Feb 2004 06:51:32 GMT References: <20040205162505 DOT 24020 DOT qmail AT web41110 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> Organization: AOL Bertelsmann Online GmbH & Co. KG http://www.germany.aol.com Subject: Re: attaching source code to the ececutable Message-ID: <20040206015132.04483.00001364@mb-m10.aol.com> To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com >Are you trying to save space in your FAT? that's one of the advantages, not the most important one IMO. It makes searching for files easier and faster. ------------------- >Sterten wrote: > >> I usually attach my source code to the executable (type xxx.c >> xxx.exe) >> but haven't seen thisdone by others. Why not ? > >Because it's a rather pointless exercise. why ? >Not to mention that the >majority of serious C programs are built from quite a lot more than a >single source file, so this technique would fail anyway. it can't fail, since just using the -E switch is one possibility. also ,just attaching the main source-file is still better than attaching nothing. You can't argue, that a thing is useless just because it can only be verified in parts. >And then >there's programs that use pasting of data after the end of the .exe >file for storing *other* data (e.g. Allegro inlines .dat files). I can't see, why this should conflict. You can attach the sorce after or before the other data, both should work, I's prefer the source at the end of the .exe >> Are there disadvantages ? > >There are, more to the point, no advantages. you really should name them for a discussion which makes sense. You can't say there are *no advantages* , since some advantages are so apparant that they can't be denied. (fewer number of files, source can easily be found) >> Shouldn't it be supported by the compiler and maybe even be the default ? > >Definitely not. just your opinion, no arguing. I should also mention, that I usually have a simple routine and a commandline switch which prints the attached sourcecode of these .exes. It's also easy to change an existing editor and compiler to edit and re-compile such .exes In case of recompiling, a new version-number-suffix should be created. Guenter Stertenbrink