Xref: news2.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:7215 From: stwand07 AT uctvms DOT uct DOT ac DOT za Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: .OBJ vs .O (was re:RHIDE and DJGPP) Date: 13 Aug 96 21:54:31 +0200 Organization: University of Cape Town Lines: 35 Message-ID: <1996Aug13.215431@uctvms.uct.ac.za> References: <199608131727 DOT VAA07673 AT video DOT yars DOT free DOT net> NNTP-Posting-Host: uctvms.uct.ac.za To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp In article <199608131727 DOT VAA07673 AT video DOT yars DOT free DOT net>, "Alexander V. Lukyanov" writes: >> From: Joshua Cannon Butcher > >> 7) And for everyone in General, why do you have to stray away from >> industry standards? Calling object files .O files instead of .OBJ, >> calling C++ files .CC instead of .CPP, and .a instead of .LIB for >> library. HELLO! Its not copyright infringement to use the same >> extensions, and it would make the transition for existing C and C++ >> users to use. This is quite frankly scaring me, and almost makes me >> want to pay the $500 for Borland C++ 5.0 so I can have the "standard" of >> the computer programming industry. > > Why do you call those silly dos extensions "industry standard"? > GCC is primarily Unix compiler and it was ported to dos. All Unices > have .o, .cc, .a etc as convensional suffixes. I think they are older than > dos. (Probably .obj was used in other os'es, like CP/M, but I don't know) > > Well, you can call your files as you want. See how: > ar q mylib.lib files... > gcc myprog.cpp mylib.lib > > You can even do 'ren ar.exe lib.exe' > This argument over "standard" DOS names vs. Unix is silly in my opinion, so I won't join in. Except to say that if .o, .a and .cc scare you, you probably should spend $500 and feel secure. Nuff said. I remember someone saying that if you say "gcc myprog.o mylib.a" the linker doesn't exclude routines in 'mylib' that aren't used. To do this one must use the "-l" option. (eg. "gcc myprog.o -lmy" to link libmy.a). Adios Mark Wodrich.