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
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 |
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! |