> 2. Since this is a "Windows thing", is there some reason why the execution > of "file" or "file.exe" isn't handled as a special case in the exec call > (and all its flavors) and no place else?
make, for example? If you have a rule that creates "foo" from foo.c, gcc will actually create "foo.exe". The next time you run make, it won’t see "foo" and recreate "foo.exe", even if "foo.exe" is still up to date. With the special handling of .exe, when make checks for "foo", cygwin checks "foo" first, doesn’t find anything, and then checks "foo.exe", returning its result to make and make is happy. Anothen example: A script tries to execute "foo" from . , cygwin executes "foo.exe" instead and the script thinks "foo" exists, but a subsequent "touch foo" (or "rm foo" or whatever) fails, which is massively inconsistent. I consider the current handling of .exe files quite consistent. Or, in other words, when forced to choose between the two pains, I’d rather endure this. Otto -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
