[mingw32] Re: [RFC] changing gcc default output executable name (a.exe now)
Thu Jan 13 11:45:00 GMT 2000
The process I (and others that I am familiar with) use is to define macros for common file extensions such as: EXEEXT, OBJEXT, and LIBEXT. You can conditionally define these in the makefile (or in a makefile that is included everywhere) to be the proper values for the target platform.
Example using gmake syntax:
ifeq ($(TARGET_OS), win32)
ifeq ($(TARGET_OS), cygwin)
Then when you define your targets:
-- Matthew Brown
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andre Oliveira da Costa" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 1:44 PM
Subject: RE: [mingw32] Re: [RFC] changing gcc default output executable name (a.exe now)
> I'd like to ask for comments on another issue related to portability from
> UNIX --> cygwin, compilation etc.: the way it is now, the linker
> automagically appends a .exe suffix to the executable filename. If you do
> gcc -o foo foo.o
> ld will create foo.exe . I wouldn't complain about it except for the fact
> that this imposes a serious restriction to portability. For example, usually
> when I try to install a just-compiled application through "make install",
> all the cp, mv, chmod, strip and install rules refer to "foo" and not
> "foo.exe", and therefore they (rightfully) complain about missing files. So,
> even if the compilation goes out well, there's always some makefile
> tweaking involved.
> I don't think tweaking all these applications to look for "foo.exe" if they
> can't find "foo" would be the right thing. But I would really like to be
> able to install the applications I compile without having to tweak all the
> makefiles. Maybe the solution would be not to add the .exe suffix...
> Am I missing something or is this a real problem?
> AndrÃÂ© Oliveira da Costa
> Want to unsubscribe from this list?
> Send a message to email@example.com
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More information about the Cygwin