Can somebody confirm how the executable extensions behave on
Windows/Cygwin? It seems that the following is true:

cc -o foo ...

creates a file `foo.exe'.

cc -o foo.exe ...

also creates a file `foo.exe'. Is that correct?

It also seems that the make targets need to be written like

pg_passwd$(X):

rather than

pg_passwd:

because otherwise you're not really updating the target of the rule.


-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vï¿½g 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden


Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:41:12 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
.exe extension on Windows

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:41:12 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:

> Can somebody confirm how the executable extensions behave on
> Windows/Cygwin? It seems that the following is true:
> 
> cc -o foo ...
> 
> creates a file `foo.exe'.
> 
> cc -o foo.exe ...
> 
> also creates a file `foo.exe'. Is that correct?

 Yes.

> It also seems that the make targets need to be written like
> 
> pg_passwd$(X):
> 
> rather than
> 
> pg_passwd:
> 
> because otherwise you're not really updating the target of the rule.

 I agreed this.
-----
Yutaka Tanida<yutaka@emeraldshell.com>


Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:33:11 +0900
Yutaka tanida <yutaka@marin.or.jp>
Re: [HACKERS] .exe extension on Windows
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org]On
> Behalf Of Yutaka tanida
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:41:12 +0200 (CEST)
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> > Can somebody confirm how the executable extensions behave on
> > Windows/Cygwin? It seems that the following is true:
> >
> > cc -o foo ...
> >
> > creates a file `foo.exe'.
> >
> > cc -o foo.exe ...
> >
> > also creates a file `foo.exe'. Is that correct?
>
>  Yes.
>
> > It also seems that the make targets need to be written like
> >
> > pg_passwd$(X):
> >
> > rather than
> >
> > pg_passwd:
> >
> > because otherwise you're not really updating the target of the rule.
>
>  I agreed this.

Hmm,I see the following in my environment.

bash-2.02$ ls
CVS          Makefile     pg_passwd.c  pg_passwd.o
bash-2.02$ make pg_passwd
gcc -o pg_passwd
pg_passwd.o -lcrypt -lm -lreadline -ltermcap -lncurses -lcygipc
 -g
bash-2.02$ ls
CVS            Makefile       pg_passwd.c    pg_passwd.exe  pg_passwd.o
bash-2.02$ make pg_passwd
make: `pg_passwd' is up to date.

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp


Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:08:03 +0900
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
RE: [HACKERS] .exe extension on Windows
Hiroshi Inoue writes:

> Hmm,I see the following in my environment.
> 
> bash-2.02$ ls
> CVS          Makefile     pg_passwd.c  pg_passwd.o
> bash-2.02$ make pg_passwd
> gcc -o pg_passwd
> pg_passwd.o -lcrypt -lm -lreadline -ltermcap -lncurses -lcygipc
>  -g
> bash-2.02$ ls
> CVS            Makefile       pg_passwd.c    pg_passwd.exe  pg_passwd.o
> bash-2.02$ make pg_passwd
> make: `pg_passwd' is up to date.

Seems make is smarter than it wants to admit. Then that would not sit well
with the changes I just made (which would require you to do `make
pg_passwd.exe', unless make is *that* smart). Gotta investigate this in
the GNU make manuals. Thanks.


-- 
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders vï¿½g 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden


Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:42:52 +0200 (CEST)
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
RE: [HACKERS] .exe extension on Windows