[mingw32] Re: [RFC] changing gcc default output executable na me (a.exe now)
Andre Oliveira da Costa
Thu Jan 13 12:47:00 GMT 2000
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> [ mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of Chris Faylor
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 6:08 PM
> To: Andre Oliveira da Costa
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [mingw32] Re: [RFC] changing gcc default output executable
> As usual, my suggestion is that rather than opine how something should be
> handled "automatically", actual source code demonstrating your idea would
> be much more helpful.
> The sources to cp, cygwin, mv, rm, make, gcc, etc. are all available.
> Personally, I have no idea how you could implement a plan to
> "automatically" do the right thing in such a way that you will end up
> satisfying everybody. However, I'd love to be proved wrong by seeing
> exactly what you are proposing.
I didn't mean I had an alternative in mind, and I was not suggesting a
specific course of action. I just wanted to start some discussion to see if
some ideas were proposed.
What I said about the file tools (cp, mv, install etc.) is that if they were
able to understand that a missing "foo" file shouldn't be treated as an
error if there was a "foo.exe" file would solve the problem as for their use
in makefiles. But, it's clearly not a good idea (and I said that on my
email) because you have many drawbacks such as loss of control (this
aliasing foo = foo.exe would probably create more problems than solutions)
and performance (there would be an overhead of extra checks for missing
Don't get me wrong: I love cygwin, and I think you guys do an amazing work.
I use it a lot at work, and it's extremely useful to me. The only purpose of
this discussion is to try to make it an even better tool, not to create
problems for no reason.
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More information about the Cygwin