On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 06:41:47PM +0200, Otto Meta wrote: >> 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.
Thank you. These were some of the considerations that were made when the change was implemented. That said, however, probably tar and friends could be modified to deal with the situation of trying to create both file and file.exe. Or, maybe there's a wonderful patch for the DLL which would fix this. cgf -- 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
