From:	time AT ice DOT com (Tim Endres)
Subject:	RE: Default linker output filename
26 Nov 1996 11:32:20 -0800 :
Sender:	daemon AT cygnus DOT com
Approved:	cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Distribution:	cygnus
Message-ID:	<01BBDB9C.F8D9B920.cygnus.gnu-win32@pc.ice.com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
Original-To:	"gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com" <gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com>
Original-Sender:	owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com

I would like to echo what I believe Sergey is saying here.
Where there is a choice of leveraging WinNT capabilities
and "compromising" for the Win95 support, I would prefer
that the NT features be leveraged, and Win95 taking a back
seat. Can you guess what I run on my machine? :)

----------
From: 	Sergey Okhapkin
Sent: 	Tuesday, November 26, 1996 2:54 AM
To: 	gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Subject: 	RE: Default linker output filename

Fredrik Roubert wrote:

>> How about to make a link from a.out to a.exe? Maybe even the "shortcut"
>> mechanism of Win95 be enough?
>
>Can't you just set up Windows 95 to recognize .out as an executable file
>extension? (Windows 3.1 can do this.)
>

The more common question - should we take in mind Windows 95 as developer's 
and cygwin32-supported platform? Do You like to press reset button every 
hour?-) Does we really need to search for work-arounds due to Windows 
95-specific bugs and misfeatures? For examle, link() syscall in cygwin.dll 
just copies file to another. Windows NT allows to use NTFS's hard links. 
CreateProcess() system call requires .exe extension under Windows 95, 
opposite to NT. You can't to enter non-US characters in bash under 95, but 
can with NT, etc...


Sergey Okhapkin
Moscow, Russia


-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".

- Raw text -