This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: cc/c89/c99 as aliases for gcc [was Re: gcc4: cc]
- From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz at users dot sourceforge dot net>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 16:07:57 -0500
- Subject: Re: cc/c89/c99 as aliases for gcc [was Re: gcc4: cc]
- References: <49C0467A.email@example.com> <49C07906.firstname.lastname@example.org> <49C07E09.email@example.com> <4A7F2F68.firstname.lastname@example.org>
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.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple