On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 14:20, Eric Blake wrote: > > Have you ever encountered a makefile that doesn't consistently use > $(EXEEXT) everywhere? Too many people just expect 'gcc -o foo ...' to > produce foo, then 'strip foo' to work, without realizing that on cygwin, > gcc created 'foo.exe' and strip _has_ to have .exe magic.
That's just one of the several scenarios which would greatly benefit from a removal of .exe magic. > > Perhaps it does make sense to drop .exe suffixes; teaching gcc that -o > foo means we really want a suffix-less file, and teaching users that > they want to modify PATHEXE to include . if they are working from the > windows side of things. Teaching is good, but I think that this part could even be made automatic, as I already demonstrated. > But it won't be an overnight switch, and will > come with its share of complaints on the list. > Sure thing. > Meanwhile, we can't get away from .lnk magic, but that produces orders > of magnitude less complaints on the list, so I'm not as worried about it. > The .lnk magic is a truly different beast, at least in the reasons that made it necessary... so I think that should be let alone, at least for now... -- ___________ Julio Costa -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple