Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
From: Richard Hitt <rbh00 AT netcom DOT com>
To: Mumit Khan <khan AT NanoTech DOT Wisc DOT EDU>
Cc: Mingw32 discussion list at eGroups <mingw32 AT egroups DOT com>,
        cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: [RFC] changing gcc default output executable name (a.exe now)
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 19:41:38 -0800
Reply-To: rbh00 AT netcom DOT com
Message-ID: <kd6t7s00l4qri5ekn2qvloppt9jnngqdqh@4ax.com>
References: <Pine DOT HPP DOT 3 DOT 96 DOT 1000112230321 DOT 6294H-100000 AT hp2 DOT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.96.1000112230321.6294H-100000@hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id WAA30754

Hi, Mumit

Here's a different perspective.  Things work fine as is.  Starting
with source file hello.c, the command
	make hello
gives me just what I want.  No makefile is necessary, of course; it's
all taken care of by make.  Starting with hello[123].c, the command
	make hello1 hello2 hello3
again gives me just what I want:  three executables hello1.exe, ....

Yes, it's lots of people's habit to do things the hard way, by
specifying explicit compiler name, but let's not change their
expectations needlessly.

Richard


On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 23:07:40 -0600 (CST), you 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?? 
>
>Regards,
>Mumit


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com