From: wdoyle AT bode DOT cdsp DOT neu DOT edu (Patrick Doyle)
Subject: Re: Default linker output filename
7 Nov 1996 06:26:22 -0800
Sender: daemon AT cygnus DOT com
Approved: cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Distribution: cygnus
Message-ID: <199611071358.IAA13775.cygnus.gnu-win32@cdsp.neu.edu>
Original-To: hhemken AT cell DOT cinvestav DOT mx
Original-Cc: gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
In-Reply-To: <3281364C.3F66@cell.cinvestav.mx> (message from Heinz Hemken on
	Wed, 06 Nov 1996 20: 07:24 -0500)
Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com

   Long Doan wrote:
   > 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?

   Or you could always just do

   gcc -o blabla.exe blabla.c foo.c bar.c

   or some such.

   -- 
   Heinz Hemken

That works fine for simple cases.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of
makefiles and configure scripts for existing software that have:

   gcc -o blabla blabla.c foo.c bar.c

which makes porting these packages to W95 difficult.  Not difficult
in the sense of "how do I make this work", just difficult in the sense
of "I have to repeatedly make this change in _every_ program I port to
W95... gee it would be nice if some combination of gnu-win32/ld/gcc
would do this for me".


-- 
-patrick
wdoyle AT cdsp DOT neu DOT edu

Happiness is a Star Trek rerun I've never seen before.
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".