From: ld@netrix.com (Long Doan) Subject: Re: Default linker output filename 6 Nov 1996 06:55:34 -0800 Sender: daemon@cygnus.com Approved: cygnus.gnu-win32@cygnus.com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: <3280A26D.3262.cygnus.gnu-win32@netrix.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; SunOS 5.4 sun4m) Original-To: Chin Chee-Kai Original-Cc: Geoffrey Noer , gnu-win32@cygnus.com Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32@cygnus.com I think it would be better if a.out is a link instead of a.out.exe, since Windows won't be able to execute a link. On the other hand, why don't we just use bash (or some other shells) and be happy with a.out? Long. Chin Chee-Kai wrote: > > IMHO, if it doesn't sound too far-fetched, perhaps creating > the default output with filename "a.out" and then create > a link file "a.out.exe-->a.out" will preserve most semantics > that prep-scripts expect, and will allow human to just type > the following : > gcc test.c > a.out > as expected on Unix. > > Chin Chee-Kai (Last, First) > Internet Email-ID: cheekai@gen.co.jp > Gen Tech Corporation > > > We are thinking about changing the default linker output filename from > > a.out to aout.exe. Can anyone think of any bad consequences that might > > result? > > > > (My gut feeling is that a.out.exe might be problematic so I lean towards > > aout.exe). > > - > For help on using this list, send a message to > "gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help". - For help on using this list, send a message to "gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".