RE: [HACKERS] .exe extension on Windows

From: "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: "Yutaka tanida" <yutaka(at)marin(dot)or(dot)jp>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "PostgreSQL Development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-ports(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] .exe extension on Windows
Date: 2000-06-26 23:08:03
Message-ID: 000501bfdfc3$611d7340$2801007e@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-ports

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)hub(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)hub(dot)org]On
> Behalf Of Yutaka tanida
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 03:41:12 +0200 (CEST)
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)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(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hiroshi Inoue 2000-06-26 23:32:02 Re: AW: File versioning (was: Big 7.1 open items)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-06-26 22:48:22 Re: Big 7.1 open items

Browse pgsql-ports by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Urban Widmark 2000-06-26 23:49:58 PostgreSQL ld.so.1 problem (solaris)
Previous Message Adriaan Joubert 2000-06-26 13:29:40 Re: [PORTS] Re: Re: Call for port testing on fmgr changes --Results!