Mail Archives: cygwin/2000/01/13/13:23:50
Brendan J Simon wrote:
>
> Mumit Khan wrote:
>
> > Are people happy/ok with the fact that gcc on win32 produces a program
> > called a.exe by default? For example,
> >
> > $ gcc foo.c
> >
> > will create a.exe. This is of course not really expected on DOS/Windows
> > world, and causes all sorts of confusion. Also, this is simply lame even
> > on Unix, and this historical bit should've disappeared long ago, but
> > won't since it's a convention now.
> >
> > I'd like to move to creating <name>.exe, where <name> is the first file
> > on the list you provided to gcc.
> >
> > $ gcc foo1.c foo2.c foo3.c
> >
> > will produce foo1.exe, not a.exe as it does now.
> >
> > Is this something we should change??
>
> Yep. I agree entirely.
> An output of <name> or even <name>.exe would be justified on Unix boxes
> also in my opinion. I don't know why Unix people still insist on making
> things harder and more cryptic then they have to be. I think it's an ego
> powertrip thing or something.
The stuff before the '.exe' may be ok, but the '.exe' isn't. It simply hints
it to be a DOS/Windows/OS/2 executable (VAX/VMS too) :
E:\usr\local\samples>gcc-linux-gnu -o hello hello.c
E:\usr\local\samples>dir/o-d/p
Volume in drive E is NTFS_3
Volume Serial Number is E86F-81C3
Directory of E:\usr\local\samples
13.01.00 20:05 4 734 hello.exe
<clip>
Producing something else for other targets than Win32, when using no
extension in 'name' with '-o name', is absolutely wrong... The '.exe'
should be tied to the Win32-target, not to the Win32-host for GCC...
Cheers, Kai
--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
- Raw text -