Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@sourceware.cygnus.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
From: "Todd Bandrowsky" <tbandrowsky@del.net>
To: <mingw32@egroups.com>
Cc: <cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com>
Subject: RE: [mingw32] Re: [RFC] changing gcc default output executable name (a.exe now)
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 10:08:23 -0500
Message-ID: <LKEKJCGMEGLCPBEIEEMDEEAPCFAA.tbandrowsky@del.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.5600
In-Reply-To: <387D5564.789AB78E@ctam.com.au>
Importance: Normal


I think that a .exe should be created on Windows and a.out created on Unix.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: brendan@k9.prophecy.com.au [mailto:brendan@k9.prophecy.com.au]On
> Behalf Of Brendan J Simon
> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 11:33 PM
> Cc: Mingw32 discussion list at eGroups; cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
> Subject: [mingw32] Re: [RFC] changing gcc default output executable name
> (a.exe now)
>
>
> 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.
>
> Brendan Simon.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> For the fastest and easiest way to backup your files and, access them from
>
> anywhere. Try @backup Free for 30 days.  Click here for a chance to win a
>
> digital camera.
> http://click.egroups.com/1/337/5/_/13107/_/947766525/
>
> -- Create a poll/survey for your group!
> -- http://www.egroups.com/vote?listname=mingw32&m=1
>
>


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com