This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: gcc produces foo.exe, not foo
- To: Arne Glenstrup <panic at diku dot dk>
- Subject: Re: gcc produces foo.exe, not foo
- From: Mumit Khan <khan at xraylith dot wisc dot edu>
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:47:40 -0500
- Cc: gnu-win32 at cygnus dot com
Arne Glenstrup <panic@diku.dk> writes:
> Now that we have established that we need some (in my opinion) dirty
> $(EXEEXT)-stuff, what is the consensus on how to use it with regards to
> makefile targets and -o switches to compilers? Should a makefile look
> like this:
Writing portable Makefiles usually always involves something that will
always be "dirty" to some/most. I still have makefiles lying around in
our projects that were portable between Unix and VMS, and talk about
dirty!
Make is a powerful tool, but the downside is that it's quite low-level
and has been showing its age for a while now. Unfortunately, the general
purpose and cross-platform alternatives just haven't caught on and have
remained in the dark arena called "research tools".
>
> EXEEXT = @EXEEXT@
>
> goal$(EXEEXT): goal.c
> $(CC) -o goal$(EXEEXT) goal.c
> cp goal$(EXEEXT) anothergoal$(EXEEXT)
> mv goal$(EXEEXT) yet.another.goal
>
How about letting make saving you some error-prone typing:
goal$(EXEEXT): goal.c
$(CC) -o $@ goal.c
cp $@ anothergoal$(EXEEXT)
mv $@ yet.another.goal
> or should it look like this:
>
> EXEEXT = @EXEEXT@
>
> goal: goal.c
> $(CC) -o goal goal.c
> cp goal$(EXEEXT) anothergoal$(EXEEXT)
> mv goal$(EXEEXT) yet.another.goal
I prefer, and use, the former.
Regards,
Mumit
-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".