Re: cc/c89/c99 as aliases for gcc [was Re: gcc4: cc]

["Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz at users dot sourceforge dot net>]

On 09/08/2009 15:19, Dave Korn wrote:
>    This makes me think that I should not ship anything by those names that is
> merely an alias for gcc.  It would help broken packages that assume the
> existence of cc, but break any that assume the semantics of cc.  I'm not sure
> which of those two is best.

IIRC packages (usually just hand-written Makefiles) using 'cc' (or 
$(CC), which make(1) defaults to 'cc') are just using it to mean a 
generic C compiler.  I really don't think they care about SUSv2.  OTOH, 
not having a 'cc' at all would make things really difficult.

>    It's possible that there might be a command-line switch to implement this
> behaviour in 4.5.0, in which case the problem will be moot and I can ship simple
> wrapper scripts that pass through the command-line options adding the new switch
> as they go, but I'm inclined to /not/ include simple alternatives-based aliases.

Makes sense wrt c89/c99.


Yaakov

--
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