[RFC] changing gcc default output executable name (a.exe now)
Brendan J Simon
Wed Jan 12 21:31:00 GMT 2000
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.
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to email@example.com
More information about the Cygwin