On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 16:47, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 03:02:16PM +0100, Julio Costa wrote: >>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. > > Uh, no. That would BREAK makefiles. >
Huh? I'm getting dense. My reading was: if gcc (or cygwin with his magic) did't apply the .exe extension, then {strip,cp,mv,install,etc...} wouldn't need the .exe magic period. else strip&company _do_ need the .exe magic # ...and possibily because of that, some Makefiles were needlessly modified to do his own magic end if So, what would break? -- ___________ 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