> > # ls -l /dev/null > crwxrwxrwx 1 root root 1, 3 Feb 14 07:04 /dev/null > > # gcc file.c -o /dev/null > /tmp/ccopqxnU.o: In function `main': > file.c:(.text+0x1d): undefined reference to `doesnt_exist' > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status > > # ls -l /dev/null > ls: /dev/null: No such file or directory
okay. educate me. why _shouldn't_ gcc remove the output file in that case? if gcc removes the target of -o in all other cases, then, in my opinion, /dev/null shouldn't be special. if it's important that gcc be able to do "test runs" without creating output, then there should be a "test run" option that says, "don't create an output file". or maybe "-o -" should be implemented, to allow writing to stdout, so it can be redirected to /dev/null. but gcc shouldn't be burdened with understanding the special needs of the developer for specific file arguments. running builds as root is like performing on the high wire without a net. you need to understand the limits of your equipment. should gcc also be told that it should refuse to write output when given "-o /dev/hda1", if /dev/hda1 is a mounted filesystem? how smart do we expect our tools to be? paul =--------------------- paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
