[mingw32] Re: [RFC] changing gcc default output executable name (a.exe now)

[Earnie Boyd]

Matthew,

Your process would still work if gcc didn't append the .exe to the executable
name.  You would just do gcc -o myprog$(EXEEXT) instead of gcc -o myprog.

Earnie.

--- Matthew Brown <mbrown@mediadb.net> wrote:
> The process I (and others that I am familiar with) use is to define macros
> for common file extensions such as: EXEEXT, OBJEXT, and LIBEXT. You can
> conditionally define these in the makefile (or in a makefile that is included
> everywhere) to be the proper values for the target platform.
> 
> Example using gmake syntax:
> ifeq ($(TARGET_OS), win32)
>   EXEEXT=.exe
>   OBJEXT=.obj
>   LIBEXT=.lib
> else
>   ifeq ($(TARGET_OS), cygwin)
>     EXEEXT=.exe
>     OBJEXT=.o
>     LIBEXT=.a
>   else
>     EXEEXT=
>     OBJEXT=.o
>     LIBEXT=.a
>   endif
> endif
> 
> Then when you define your targets:
> foo$(EXEEXT) :
> 
> -- Matthew Brown
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Andre Oliveira da Costa" <costa@cade.com.br>
> To: <cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 1:44 PM
> Subject: RE: [mingw32] Re: [RFC] changing gcc default output executable name
> (a.exe now)
> 
> 
> > I'd like to ask for comments on another issue related to portability from
> > UNIX --> cygwin, compilation etc.: the way it is now, the linker
> > automagically appends a .exe suffix to the executable filename. If you do
> > 
> > gcc -o foo foo.o
> > 
> > ld will create foo.exe . I wouldn't complain about it except for the fact
> > that this imposes a serious restriction to portability. For example,
> usually
> > when I try to install a just-compiled application through "make install",
> > all the cp, mv, chmod, strip and install rules refer to "foo" and not
> > "foo.exe", and therefore they (rightfully) complain about missing files.
> So,
> > even if the compilation goes out well,  there's always some makefile
> > tweaking involved.
> > 
> > I don't think tweaking all these applications to look for "foo.exe" if they
> > can't find "foo" would be the right thing. But I would really like to be
> > able to install the applications I compile without having to tweak all the
> > makefiles. Maybe the solution would be not to add the .exe suffix...
> > 
> > Am I missing something or is this a real problem?
> > 
> > Andre
> > --
> > André Oliveira da Costa
> > (costa@cade.com.br)
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> > Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> --
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com
> 
> 
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com