Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com From: N8TM AT aol DOT com Message-ID: <6c.cf3a06.25aec800@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 01:17:36 EST Subject: Re: [RFC] changing gcc default output executable name (a.exe now) To: mingw32 AT egroups DOT com, cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 12 In a message dated 1/12/2000 9:09:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, khan AT NanoTech DOT Wisc DOT EDU writes: > I'd like to move to creating .exe, where 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?? I suppose this is the most common mode of operation for commercial Windows compilers. The Lahey compilers do it this way $ lf95 sub1.f sub2.f produces sub1.exe, as does $ fcc sub1.c sub2.c Now that is a turkey of a compiler. -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com